Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleCanary

CULLUMGATE REVISITED

Recommended Posts

Some posters may remember that a few months ago I published a lengthy history and explanation of Cullumgate. Some posters may have tried to forget. In the light of recent developments I have updated the website by adding an Afterword, dealing with those new aspects. For those who are interested the website can be found atwww.thecanarypurple.homestead.comor is it... http://thecanarypurple.homestead.com/Frankly they both seem to work. But then the internet thingy is a mystery to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Some posters may remember that a few months ago I published a lengthy history and explanation of Cullumgate. Some posters may have tried to forget. In the light of recent developments I have updated the website by adding an Afterword, dealing with those new aspects. For those who are interested the website can be found at

www.thecanarypurple.homestead.com

or is it...
 
http://thecanarypurple.homestead.com/

Frankly they both seem to work. But then the internet thingy is a mystery to me.
[/quote]

 

Excellent work PC. An interesting read, and nice to be reminded of "Soap"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they don''t want to sell? lol I think we all knew that even before anything was written about it officially.

They want investment, but don''t want to give their toy up.

Share this post


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

So they don''t want to sell? lol I think we all knew that even before anything was written about it officially.

They want investment, but don''t want to give their toy up.

[/quote]Purple, an excellent synopsis of the Cullum saga which explodes many of the myths although, despite all your work, it appears that some people are capable of misreading your conclusion that DS and MWJ are prepared to sell!(Not that, as you have said, Smith and Jones have made it easy to understand exactly what their intentions are!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yelverton Yella"]

Purple, an excellent synopsis of the Cullum saga which explodes many of the myths although, despite all your work, it appears that some people are capable of misreading your conclusion that DS and MWJ are prepared to sell!

(Not that, as you have said, Smith and Jones have made it easy to understand exactly what their intentions are!)
[/quote]

 

To be fair Yelverton the following quote from Keith Harris as recreated by Purple is more likely to be accurate than any quotes from the Capital Canary meeting where undying support was given to the manager we know know was effectively removed in a Board meeting 24 hours before:

Then, in the Canary Preview, Keith Harris, charged with finding investment, said the following:

”My brief is to advise [Smith and Jones] on the alternatives that are available. It’s a broad brief. They’ve not specifically asked me to sell the club. If anything their position has hardened that they’re going to stay there, see it through, and essentially what the clubs needs now is some injection of capital.

 

So as with the whole saga (and how it always has been despite those people who think they can read between the lines) nothing is any clearer at all.

 

Thanks Purple for keeping this running so long after you originally were going to, it helps to remind us of the bad old days and make the bad new days seem more palatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CT "]What if Wiz had done something like this?
[/quote]

What if we''d have bought Dean Ashton in the summer when we were promoted? All if''s and but''s. Ge didn''t so there''s no need to worry about it...

Share this post


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

Excellent PC.

Really does outline and flesh out the Cullumgate episode.

What are you going to do in the evenings now[:D]

[/quote]Good question! I thought I might go to night school and study for a career change. The law, perhaps. Being a barrister sounds fun. What could be more riveting than the intricacies of the Data Protection Act?As to what if Wiz had written it, I think he would - rightly - be regarded as a Renaissance Man. Au fait not just with wizardry but fiduciary duties and the difference between editda and profit...

Share this post


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

Excellent PC.

Really does outline and flesh out the Cullumgate episode.

What are you going to do in the evenings now[:D]

[/quote]

Good question! I thought I might go to night school and study for a career change. The law, perhaps. Being a barrister sounds fun. What could be more riveting than the intricacies of the Data Protection Act?

As to what if Wiz had written it, I think he would - rightly - be regarded as a Renaissance Man. Au fait not just with wizardry but fiduciary duties and the difference between editda and profit...[/quote]

Would suggest reading all the Rumpole books By John Mortimer then.

Superb grounding in a barristers work. No law involved at all!![;)]

Share this post


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

Excellent PC.

Really does outline and flesh out the Cullumgate episode.

What are you going to do in the evenings now[:D]

[/quote]

Good question! I thought I might go to night school and study for a career change. The law, perhaps. Being a barrister sounds fun. What could be more riveting than the intricacies of the Data Protection Act?

As to what if Wiz had written it, I think he would - rightly - be regarded as a Renaissance Man. Au fait not just with wizardry but fiduciary duties and the difference between editda and profit...[/quote]

Would suggest reading all the Rumpole books By John Mortimer then.

Superb grounding in a barristers work. No law involved at all!![;)]

[/quote]

 

Still get goosebumps over Patricia Hodges glacial sex appeal in the tv re-runs.......[:$]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was really interesting reading, not about Beausant''s Patricia Hodge fetish, Purple''s Cullum update. Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent reading, PC... didn''t have the time to go through it all when you originally posted, but makes things a little clearer.  Its kind of how I saw things anyway, so confirms my own suspicions on how things played out.  As you mention in the article, Archant didn''t help things with their headline hunting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="shortfatb"]That was really interesting reading, not about Beausant''s Patricia Hodge fetish, Purple''s Cullum update. Well done.[/quote]Well, actually, I''m with Beau on the Patricia Hodge thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew quite a bit of this but did not have all the background facts and the other stuff about other clubs.  I''m really grateful for all the effort you''ve put into this and the objective and balanced way you''ve gone about this.  Just the sort of thing that makes coming on here worthwhile.  I just hope that some of the "Kick the Evil 2 Out" brigade will give things a bit of time to settle down, given what you say about things in the boardroom, especially in relation to decision making.  At least sounds a little more hopeful than Delia and MWJ running it on their own.  Thanks again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="shortfatb"]That was really interesting reading, not about Beausant''s Patricia Hodge fetish, Purple''s Cullum update. Well done.[/quote]Well, actually, I''m with Beau on the Patricia Hodge thing![/quote]I read the adendum and then did a google image search for Patricia Hodge.Sorry, PC - the second was better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="7rew"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="shortfatb"]That was really interesting reading, not about Beausant''s Patricia Hodge fetish, Purple''s Cullum update. Well done.[/quote]Well, actually, I''m with Beau on the Patricia Hodge thing![/quote]I read the adendum and then did a google image search for Patricia Hodge.Sorry, PC - the second was better.[/quote]But, with deep respect 7rew, who are you to assume that PurpleCanary is not Patricia Hodge? Brains and beauty. Or should that be beauty and brains?

Share this post


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

[quote user="CT "]What if Wiz had done something like this?
[/quote]

I think you know that he would have got slated, just because it''s Wiz [:)]

[/quote]

Does not matter, wiz could not and would not write something like this. There are several reasons why he gets slated you know?

Share this post


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

[quote user="CT "]What if Wiz had done something like this?
[/quote]

I think you know that he would have got slated, just because it''s Wiz [:)]

[/quote]

Does not matter, wiz could not and would not write something like this. There are several reasons why he gets slated you know?

[/quote]

Indeed, but he keeps all of you having something to talk about lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Excellent reading, PC... didn''t have the time to go through it all when you originally posted, but makes things a little clearer.  Its kind of how I saw things anyway, so confirms my own suspicions on how things played out.  As you mention in the article, Archant didn''t help things with their headline hunting![/quote].Evil Monkey, one of the reasons I went to all this trouble was that

someone had to, given Archant''s lamentable coverage of Cullumgate.

What you''ve read on my website is what you should have read in the EDP months ago.

I don''t particularly include that headline in my criticism of their

overall coverage. That was just a dumb mistake. But, as you point out

elsewhere, the EDP is still calling that £56m a price or a valuation,

when it was nothing of the kind. There''s no excuse for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Evil Monkey"]Excellent reading, PC... didn''t have the time to go through it all when you originally posted, but makes things a little clearer.  Its kind of how I saw things anyway, so confirms my own suspicions on how things played out.  As you mention in the article, Archant didn''t help things with their headline hunting!
[/quote]

.
Evil Monkey, one of the reasons I went to all this trouble was that someone had to, given Archant''s lamentable coverage of Cullumgate.

What you''ve read on my website is what you should have read in the EDP months ago.

I don''t particularly include that headline in my criticism of their overall coverage. That was just a dumb mistake. But, as you point out elsewhere, the EDP is still calling that £56m a price or a valuation, when it was nothing of the kind. There''s no excuse for that.[/quote]

And virtually every day someone repeats it, or a variation of it, on here. I fail to see how anybody could have ever come to that conclusion unless they had an agenda or were stupid[:O]

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Evil Monkey"]Excellent reading, PC... didn''t have the time to go through it all when you originally posted, but makes things a little clearer.  Its kind of how I saw things anyway, so confirms my own suspicions on how things played out.  As you mention in the article, Archant didn''t help things with their headline hunting!
[/quote]

.
Evil Monkey, one of the reasons I went to all this trouble was that someone had to, given Archant''s lamentable coverage of Cullumgate.

What you''ve read on my website is what you should have read in the EDP months ago.

I don''t particularly include that headline in my criticism of their overall coverage. That was just a dumb mistake. But, as you point out elsewhere, the EDP is still calling that £56m a price or a valuation, when it was nothing of the kind. There''s no excuse for that.[/quote]

And virtually every day someone repeats it, or a variation of it, on here. I fail to see how anybody could have ever come to that conclusion unless they had an agenda or were stupid[:O]

 

 

[/quote]

 

Or the fact that people think you have a wonderful local paper and I think it is crap from top to bottom.  Whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ankles"]How can pure fantasy & speculation be lauded? Utter rubbish[/quote]

No idea but Archant is third rate crap from top to bottom.  A joke out on the road - truly a joke.

But, there you are, that''s your conduit to Norwich FC matters.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Ankles"]How can pure fantasy & speculation be lauded? Utter rubbish[/quote]

No idea but Archant is third rate crap from top to bottom.  A joke out on the road - truly a joke.

But, there you are, that''s your conduit to Norwich FC matters.

[/quote]

 

PS: It is no better at the Colchester end.  Pay £25,000 and WTF do you end up with?

Share this post


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

 

No idea but Archant is third rate crap from top to bottom.  A joke out on the road - truly a joke.

 

[/quote]

 

Why spend so much time on an Archant message board then Cam??

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...