McNally

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

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

Nutty here''s an example of your sidestep:

 

 

[/quote]

And an example of the way you manipulate facts to show our club in a bad light can be found on the same pages Tangie.

[/quote]

Nutty,

Regarding your sidestepping, I noticed you haven''t denied that you changed the question.

 

Now I will say the same thing (almost) to you as I did to Capt. Ludd:

It doesn''t say much for your research Nutty because if you had read my article:

http://www.pinkun.com/content/pinkun/blogs/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=NCISA&tBrand=PINKUNOnline&tCategory=NCISA&itemid=NOED18%20Dec%202009%2012%3A56%3A03%3A270

you will have noticed that I have given the team, Paul Lambert and McNally praise.

 

What I will not do is praise the Wynnies for landing this club in Division 3 (old money), the delay in signing Ashton, the ex LSE. and ex Norwich City Council land purchases and some poor appointments regarding football managers.

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

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

Nutty here''s an example of your sidestep:

 

 

[/quote]

And when you''ve explained that maybe you could finally answer the question about what things our board spent money on that summer rather than a striker.

[/quote]

Off the top of my head (and I would need to check the NCFC Plc Accounts) about £7m of Tangible Fixed Assets. The detail is in my old posts on this bb and you are capable of searching for them as anybody else is.

Approx. £1m of the Community stand spend wasn''t financed from a loan....so thats a starter for 10, then there was the money that the B Preference shareholders told the club they wouldn''t reclaim....add to that the £1.1m receipt from the hotel lease......and the following seasons (2005-2006) parachute receipts for later payments re the transfer. Alot of money without even looking at the other Tangible Fixed Asset spend.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Tangie.. I asked you that question because i honestly believed you had the answer. I extended it to Stoke because they did the same thing and I thought your answer would be the same for both clubs. I now realise I was wrong.

It is my opinion that we didn''t have the money for Ashton in the summer which is why we waited. I have the same opinion about Stoke. I honestly believed you did too when you mentioned cash flow but I now realise I was wrong and you were referring to the money you believe we spent on non-essential non-footballing stuff.

Now will you answer my questions?

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

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

Nutty here''s an example of your sidestep:

 

 

[/quote]

And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

[/quote]

Exactly WHAT figures are you accusing me of manipulating?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 I honestly believed you did too when you mentioned cash flow but I now realise I was wrong and you were referring to the money you believe we spent on non-essential non-footballing stuff.

[/quote]

Thats why I mentioned: Ashton v Tangible Fixed Assets

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Now will you answer my questions?

[/quote]

Well I have given you two answers before you posted the above and one after.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

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

Nutty here''s an example of your sidestep:

 

 

[/quote]

And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

[/quote]

Exactly WHAT figures are you accusing me of manipulating?

[/quote]

And an example of the way you manipulate facts to show our club in a bad light can be found on the same pages Tangie. Maybe you would like to explain why you quoted Stokes spending of 3.25m in the summer of 2008 and their spending of 6.5m in the following January as evidence that they showed more ambition than us. I would suggest if anything it shows the complete opposite. And when you''ve explained that maybe you could finally answer the question about what things our board spent money on that summer rather than a striker. And if you have time maybe the same question about Stoke would be helpful. And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

If you were to put the millions that Stoke spent as a percentage of the Premier League income in 2008/9 and compared them to the millions we spent as a percentage of the Premier league income in 2004/5 which club would be showing the greater ambition? Just quoting the headline transfer fees out of context is fag packet accounting at it''s worst! (Or maybe best?)

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

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

 I honestly believed you did too when you mentioned cash flow but I now realise I was wrong and you were referring to the money you believe we spent on non-essential non-footballing stuff.

[/quote]

Thats why I mentioned: Ashton v Tangible Fixed Assets

[/quote]

Well I don''t believe we had the money. That''s why we waited til January.

 

[Legend Iwan 30]

Nutty why don''t you think we had money in the summer? Surely we should have the 30mil (?) that teams recieved then.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

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

Nutty here''s an example of your sidestep:

 

 

[/quote]

And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

[/quote]

Exactly WHAT figures are you accusing me of manipulating?

[/quote]

And an example of the way you manipulate facts to show our club in a bad light can be found on the same pages Tangie. Maybe you would like to explain why you quoted Stokes spending of 3.25m in the summer of 2008 and their spending of 6.5m in the following January as evidence that they showed more ambition than us. I would suggest if anything it shows the complete opposite. And when you''ve explained that maybe you could finally answer the question about what things our board spent money on that summer rather than a striker. And if you have time maybe the same question about Stoke would be helpful. And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

If you were to put the millions that Stoke spent as a percentage of the Premier League income in 2008/9 and compared them to the millions we spent as a percentage of the Premier league income in 2004/5 which club would be showing the greater ambition? Just quoting the headline transfer fees out of context is fag packet accounting at it''s worst! (Or maybe best?)

[/quote]

BUT as I have pointed out in the past, we needed a target man, thats what Worthington wanted in the summer of 2004. Stoke had Creswell who was a target man and two other players who probably could have played in that role (Fuller and the guy whose name starts with a S) at the start of their first recent season in The Premiership. So instead of concentrating on getting Ashton to fill that target man role before the season started and delaying SOME of the Tangible Fixed Asset spend we delayed in signing Ashton. Thats why I question the ambition of NCFC Plc.

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

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

Nutty here''s an example of your sidestep:

 

 

[/quote]

And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

[/quote]

Exactly WHAT figures are you accusing me of manipulating?

[/quote]

And an example of the way you manipulate facts to show our club in a bad light can be found on the same pages Tangie. Maybe you would like to explain why you quoted Stokes spending of 3.25m in the summer of 2008 and their spending of 6.5m in the following January as evidence that they showed more ambition than us. I would suggest if anything it shows the complete opposite. And when you''ve explained that maybe you could finally answer the question about what things our board spent money on that summer rather than a striker. And if you have time maybe the same question about Stoke would be helpful. And then maybe an answer as to why you tried to manipulate these figures to show our club in a bad light.

If you were to put the millions that Stoke spent as a percentage of the Premier League income in 2008/9 and compared them to the millions we spent as a percentage of the Premier league income in 2004/5 which club would be showing the greater ambition? Just quoting the headline transfer fees out of context is fag packet accounting at it''s worst! (Or maybe best?)

[/quote]

BUT as I have pointed out in the past, we needed a target man, thats what Worthington wanted in the summer of 2004. Stoke had Creswell who was a target man and two other players who probably could have played in that role (Fuller and the guy whose name starts with a S) at the start of their first recent season in The Premiership. So instead of concentrating on getting Ashton to fill that target man role before the season started and delaying SOME of the Tangible Fixed Asset spend we delayed in signing Ashton. Thats why I question the ambition of NCFC Plc.

 

[/quote]

You''re side stepping Tangie. You quoted Stokes spend compared to ours as a reflection of our supposed lack of ambition.

I will say again. I don''t believe we had the money to buy Ashton in the summer. Stoke only spent a tad more than us ion the summer of 2008 when they had far more money but less ambition.

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="Legend Iwan"]

Nutty why don''t you think we had money in the summer? Surely we should have the 30mil (?) that teams recieved then.

[/quote]

Sorry Legend, I nearly missed this. To be honest mate I don''t think it was anything like 30m and the money we did receive comes in "bits and bobs". I don''t think you get a cheque for 30m on arrival. So maybe the whole deal was worth 30m over three years including the parachute payments?

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Oh, and I think it was worth double that by the time Stoke got there in 2008 which is the point I was making about my friend Tangies figures.

 

[Legend Iwan 30]

Fair enough I neither believed the money came in one lump-sum, however, surely the could calculate the expenditure for use in the summer transfer window?

Also I think it went up to 50mil the season we were relegated from the prem.

[The Fish Seller 0]

We did of course bank somewhere around £6,250,000 from the Chase Land deal sale over and above any football income during that period between achieving promotion and purchasing Ashton didn''t we?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I dont say much for your research Capt. Ludd because if you had read my article:

http://www.pinkun.com/content/pinkun/blogs/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=NCISA&tBrand=PINKUNOnline&tCategory=NCISA&itemid=NOED18%20Dec%202009%2012%3A56%3A03%3A270

you will have noticed that I have given the team, Paul Lambert and McNally praise.[/quote]Well, that was an interesting read Tangy! No mention of the Stowmarket Two, tangible fixed assets, spine roads, ex LSE land or even form 288b. But then again, what you say on NSICA''s behalf and what you really mean and say on here are complete opposites aren''t they? [:O]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Actually Nutty I didn’t start off quoting Stoke’s figures verus NCFC’s. I merely made the following observation on the 5/12/09 at 6.11pm.:

Why dont you admit it, that delaying the signing of Ashton was a poor decision.

Other clubs like Stoke, Hull and Burnley have and are making more of an attempt to stay in The Premiership than we did. Its called ambition unlike our, little ol'' Norwich, please dont thrash us attitude that we had at the time.

-----------------------------------------------

and I made the following observation on the 5/12/09 at 6.51pm:

Just look at our home form for the second half of the 2004 -2005 season. Not only did Ashton score goals but the Conqueror of Poorman Rd. started to get goals (as he had a proper partner up front) too. The delay in signing Ashton did show a lack of ambition and it was a poor decision in not delaying the tangible asset spend.

Do you think Stoke, Burnley and Hull would have delayed signing Ashton if they had been in our position in the summer of 2004?  Burnley and Stoke have spent more than us in their first season without going mad and Stoke have built on progress by buying Huth and Tudgay this season. While Hull have spent more than Stoke and Burnley and there was much press speculation over old accounts I believe their new Chairman  (or Chief Executive??) has stated that their liabilities are lower than was speculated. I am not sure but I think a figure of £9m was mentioned.

In absolute terms (i.e. £s / wonga/ dosh) Burnley and Stoke have spent more than us in our first season and Stoke have spent £28m over 18 months.

BUT its not just about spend its about getting key players in as I pointed out in my post on the 15/12/09 at 5.52pm:

15/12/09   5.52pm.

Lets take about Stoke City:

1) Off the top of my head they had at least three strikers with at least Creswell being able to play as a target man. May be Fuller or Sidibe could play that role too. Who did we have during the first half of the 2004 - 2005 season as a target man (until Ashton arrived)?

 

That is why I question NCFC ambition versus other clubs.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I dont say much for your research Capt. Ludd because if you had read my article:

http://www.pinkun.com/content/pinkun/blogs/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=NCISA&tBrand=PINKUNOnline&tCategory=NCISA&itemid=NOED18%20Dec%202009%2012%3A56%3A03%3A270

you will have noticed that I have given the team, Paul Lambert and McNally praise.[/quote]Well, that was an interesting read Tangy! No mention of the Stowmarket Two, tangible fixed assets, spine roads, ex LSE land or even form 288b. But then again, what you say on NSICA''s behalf and what you really mean and say on here are complete opposites aren''t they? [:O]

[/quote]

Capt. Ludd.,

I quite openly support the team, Lambert and McNally in my posts on here. So there''s no inconsistency between the article and what I say on here.

May I suggest you get out of your Wynnies bunker and actually consider that people can support the team, Lambert and McNally while not being impressed over other club related issues.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I dont say much for your research Capt. Ludd because if you had read my article:

http://www.pinkun.com/content/pinkun/blogs/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=NCISA&tBrand=PINKUNOnline&tCategory=NCISA&itemid=NOED18%20Dec%202009%2012%3A56%3A03%3A270

you will have noticed that I have given the team, Paul Lambert and McNally praise.[/quote]Well, that was an interesting read Tangy! No mention of the Stowmarket Two, tangible fixed assets, spine roads, ex LSE land or even form 288b. But then again, what you say on NSICA''s behalf and what you really mean and say on here are complete opposites aren''t they? [:O]

[/quote]

Capt. Ludd.,

I quite openly support the team, Lambert and McNally in my posts on here. So there''s no inconsistency between the article and what I say on here.

May I suggest you get out of your Wynnies bunker and actually consider that people can support the team, Lambert and McNally while not being impressed over other club related issues.

[/quote]

Lapp makes a point.....Tangie provides an answer to a different point. Tangie, you do this constantly as if it''s a talent. It''s not. It''s silly. Are you sure your real name is not Tony Spin-all?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Another pointless post from Cranky Yankey.

Enjoy Obama!

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I quite openly support the team, Lambert and McNally in my posts on here. So there''s no inconsistency between the article and what I say on here.[/quote]I have no problem with that but most of your posts on here are about the other things I mentioned. Surely, an NCISA article in the Pink-un is an ideal platform to get your message across to more fans than repeating the same tired old retoric over and over on here. People reading that who don''t know you would think that you are totally supportive of the club and we all know that isn''t true don''t we? Hopefully, we will keep winning games and then your next article will congratulate the Stowmarket Two for employing McNally and Lambert. [Y]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]I quite openly support the team, Lambert and McNally in my posts on here. So there''s no inconsistency between the article and what I say on here.[/quote]I have no problem with that but most of your posts on here are about the other things I mentioned. Surely, an NCISA article in the Pink-un is an ideal platform to get your message across to more fans than repeating the same tired old retoric over and over on here. People reading that who don''t know you would think that you are totally supportive of the club and we all know that isn''t true don''t we? Hopefully, we will keep winning games and then your next article will congratulate the Stowmarket Two for employing McNally and Lambert. [Y][/quote]

Still in denial about those short & curlies I see Lapp. And turning the other cheek won''t make the truth go away.

Dear, dear, dear.

But still, one love.

OTBC

[The Butler 0]

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

So when they are owners they are not board members and when they are board members they are not owners. Yes that is VERY logical.

So when they appoint Gunn they don''t own the club and when they appoint McNally they do.

When they sack Worthy they...........far too complex for a simple Butler.

Can''t you see Nutty that it does not make rational sense.

Now this complexity of thought of yours is giving me a headache (or was that just Bla joining in)

Please how do they manage to be two people at the same time?

[/quote]

But to keep it simple yet again. I never didn''t have confidence in them owning the club, just no confidence in them running the club. I don''t know how many times this is that I have answered this question. You may not agree with my opinion but the fact that you won''t recognise it beggars belief.

 

[/quote]

So to be absolutely clear Nutty you are happy to have them as owners BUT you don''t want them anywhere near running the club.

Seems as if we have a point of agrement.[<:o)]

[PurpleCanary 5,573]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Other clubs like Stoke, Hull and Burnley have and are making more of an attempt to stay in The Premiership than we did. Its called ambition unlike our, little ol'' Norwich.

[/quote]OK, let''s take Burnley, and see what their manager says...

23 December 2009

By Carl Markham

Burnley

boss Owen Coyle has revealed that Wolves manager Mick McCarthy laughed

when he told him the transfer budget he is working with as he tries to

keep the Clarets in the Premier League.

The

14th-placed Clarets have exceeded expectations so far this season with

their hard-working squad – assembled on a shoestring compared to the

rest of the top flight – doing the manager proud.

However, with more than half the season to go Coyle will aim to make do with the odd bargain buy and loan signings,

having already been linked with a bid to bring in young Arsenal

midfielder Jack Wilshere on a temporary deal."Mick McCarthy

nearly fell off his chair laughing when I told him what our budget

was," said Coyle of his meeting with the Wolves boss before Sunday''s

2-0 defeat.Or this...

Owen Coyle has admitted that the poor state of

Burnley’s funds could see the club miss out on a host of transfer

targets including Sheffield United’s Matthew Kilgallon.

Coyle has stated his desire to add depth to his squad after bringing

in 9 players during the summer but he feels that he does not have the

money to bring in even Championship level players, especially after

breaking the bank and the club’s transfer record to bring Steven

Fletcher to the club from Hibs for £3m.

“We have the smallest squad

in the division. We have got players who are ready to give everything

they’ve got. But we have a budget which is not even a Championship

budget. If I go and try to sign players from the Championship I might

struggle.”

---Hmm. Assembled on a shoestring??? "Not even a Championship budget"??? Dear me! Even allowing for Coyle cunningly putting a bit of pressure on the board before the transfer window opens it appears Burnley''s ambition all along has been heavily limited by a cold dose of prudence.

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Other clubs like Stoke, Hull and Burnley have and are making more of an attempt to stay in The Premiership than we did. Its called ambition unlike our, little ol'' Norwich.

[/quote]

OK, let''s take Burnley, and see what their manager says...

23 December 2009

By Carl Markham

Burnley boss Owen Coyle has revealed that Wolves manager Mick McCarthy laughed when he told him the transfer budget he is working with as he tries to keep the Clarets in the Premier League.

The 14th-placed Clarets have exceeded expectations so far this season with their hard-working squad – assembled on a shoestring compared to the rest of the top flight – doing the manager proud.

However, with more than half the season to go Coyle will aim to make do with the odd bargain buy and loan signings, having already been linked with a bid to bring in young Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere on a temporary deal.

"Mick McCarthy nearly fell off his chair laughing when I told him what our budget was," said Coyle of his meeting with the Wolves boss before Sunday''s 2-0 defeat.

Or this...

Owen Coyle has admitted that the poor state of Burnley’s funds could see the club miss out on a host of transfer targets including Sheffield United’s Matthew Kilgallon.

Coyle has stated his desire to add depth to his squad after bringing in 9 players during the summer but he feels that he does not have the money to bring in even Championship level players, especially after breaking the bank and the club’s transfer record to bring Steven Fletcher to the club from Hibs for £3m.

“We have the smallest squad in the division. We have got players who are ready to give everything they’ve got. But we have a budget which is not even a Championship budget. If I go and try to sign players from the Championship I might struggle.”

---

Hmm. Assembled on a shoestring??? "Not even a Championship budget"??? Dear me! Even allowing for Coyle cunningly putting a bit of pressure on the board before the transfer window opens it appears Burnley''s ambition all along has been heavily limited by a cold dose of prudence.[/quote]

[:D] Marvellous while Tangie''s argument falls flat on its arse let me add this about Hull......

Ltd/Allstar

Hull City have been warned their uncertain financial position threatens the club''s "ability to continue as a going concern". The club''s accounts, filed five months late to Companies House, say that in the event of relegation the Premier League club will need to generate a £23m surplus just to meet their existing liabilities.

The grim forecast from the club''s accountants, Deloitte, emphasises the need for a financial overhaul during the next 12 months to safeguard Hull''s future. Although the figures for their first season in the top flight will not be available until next year, the independent auditors'' report, with its stark warning, does cover the club''s current financial situation..

Most telling, though, is Deloitte''s prediction that Hull will need to raise an additional £16m should they retain their Premier League status this season and a further £7m again if the club, currently ensconced in the bottom three, slip back into the Championship.

The report proposes that Hull might seek to recover those sums through a combination of player trading, commercial activities and/or a cash injection. However, Hull have already sold their best player, Michael Turner, who joined Sunderland for around £6m this summer, and there are few other significant assets within Phil Brown''s struggling squad.

It is significant that the auditors, in these latest accounts, do not suggest that the Essex-based property investor Russell Bartlett, who took over from Adam Pearson in 2007, will invest further in the club to make up the shortfall, as often is the case with football benefactors.

"These forecasts demonstrate that in order to operate within the company''s finance facilities Hull City AFC will need to generate a surplus £23m during the next 12 months through player trading, match day and commercial income and/or through additional finance raising," the report said.

"In the event that the club retains Premier League status for the 2010-11 season, the additional funding required for the 12-month period will be in the region of £16m. This is reduced as a result of the guaranteed level of Premier League distributions that will be received ...

"As is common with all football clubs, Hull City AFC will make player purchases and sales during the course of the season to manage the company''s cash flow as and when required. The directors acknowledge that player purchases and sales are uncertain in terms of timing and quantum and some uncertainty exists over the availability and quantum of additional facilities should such be required.

"These conditions indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the company''s ability to continue as a going concern."

Although Hull supporters might point to the pot of gold that accompanies winning promotion to the Premier League as a reason to believe the accounts for the year ending 31 May 2009 will be more encouraging, much of the money is likely to have been swallowed up in salaries and transfer fees. Paul Duffen, the Hull chairman, claimed last month that the club had spent £19m buying players in January and the summer, while receiving at most £10m from the sales of Turner and Sam Ricketts to Bolton Wanderers.

Duffen also said at that point that "there are no problems here, the club is properly financed" when questioned about why the accounts had not previously been filed with Companies House.

He went on to say: "We are in discussions with our auditors about the wording of the notes to the accounts." No one at Hull City was available to make any comment last night.

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="eagle"]

Anyone fancy summarising this thread in a few lines?

I can''t be bothered to read it all.

[/quote]

View One
DS/MWJ have made a conscious decision to take money from the footballing side of the club and invest this into infrastructure (new stand, offices, food, land, spine roads etc etc). This is the reason we are in division 3. The motive is ego and greed. They lack ambition.

View Two
The footballing budget stands comparison to most of the CCC but a succession of poor managerial appointments led to Div 3. Only the super rich can now fund the investment required for the Prem due to player wages. DS/MWJ lack the cash.
[/quote]

"The motive is ego and greed".  Who on earth has said that?  People on here readily admit that the board made lots of poor footballing decisions, yet then tell us their decisions off the pitch must be beyond reproach.  It is possible that nice,well-meaning people get themselves into a role which is beyond them and they screw up, yet people on here can only view it in a simplistic "She`s a saint" or "She`s a witch" kind of way.

[/quote]

Give me a break Mr C (arn''t you supposed to be in South America anyway?) I don''t understand your point[:^)]

I paraphrase, but plenty on here have made this point.

But if you can summarise this thread in two paragraphs, please do.
[/quote]

I don`t remember ever giving my departure date.  If i did, nutty would only accuse me of making it up.....

By "plenty" i assume you mean the textspeak planks who occasionally vent their spleens on these boards?  Where has your "ego and greed" comment been paraphrased on this thread?  It`s just emotional kneejerk nonsense i`m afraid.

[/quote]

.........and your two paragraph summary of this thread is?

[PurpleCanary 5,573]

LOL. And just to blow Tangible''s argument even further out of the water (if that were possible) the third club he mentioned as having more ambition was Stoke. Well possibly so, but then Stoke''s owner, Peter Coates, is 27th on the football rich list, with a fortune of £275m. And there is another backer, Philip Rawlins, at £30m, which puts even him above Smith and Jones. With that kind of money it is not surprising Stoke have felt able to show some ambition.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]You may be right PC but i think face`s earlier post is undeniably true.  Bowkett`s original letter was as about as critical as he could get away with and he`s made several barbed comments since, such as "We`re here to win football matches, not develop a property portfolio".  Now McNally has joined in with his recent comments.  Do you think there has been a change of approach or are these comments insincere?[/quote]

Mr Carrow, I would say that any comments made by Bowkett before he joined the board would be about as valuable as any made by any of us on this message board. But the comments he has made since he became Chairman would have been made when he was in possession of the relevant facts with which to make a judgement. What say you?

 

[/quote]

The more i read your posts, the more i think of Harry Enfield`s spoof Yorkshireman:  "I say what i like and i like what i bloody well say".  You really do post a load of self-rightious, pompous drivel.  Two high profile Associate Directors coming out and publically criticising the club is the same as someone posting on here.....yeah, you`re right, it is nutty.  Well done.

[/quote]

High profile Associate Directors now is it? So what they say as these big hitters far outweighs anything that may be said by what I can only assume is a low profile tu''ppenny ha''penny football club chairman.

Really[:|]

 

[/quote]

Where did i say that nutty?  As usual, when in doubt, nutty makes something up.....

[/quote]

Well you do seem to put much more weight on Bowketts words as an ordinary shareholder than as club chairman. I am happy to do the opposite.

 

[/quote]

No i do not.  If you hadn`t comprehensively lost the argument you wouldn`t have to lie.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

BF, it can`t be done and i wouldn`t be daft enough to try.  And what i also wouldn`t do is use it as an excuse to make something imflammatory up about the "other" side of the argument.  Some of us can see things other than in black and white. 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]LOL. And just to blow Tangible''s argument even further out of the water (if that were possible) the third club he mentioned as having more ambition was Stoke. Well possibly so, but then Stoke''s owner, Peter Coates, is 27th on the football rich list, with a fortune of £275m. And there is another backer, Philip Rawlins, at £30m, which puts even him above Smith and Jones.

With that kind of money it is not surprising Stoke have felt able to show some ambition.[/quote]

Tangies argument is that these clubs have shown more ambition than us- where exactly has that argument been blown out of the water?  Or is it yet another case of changing the argument to something more comfortable?  The intellectual dishonesty of some of you lot really knows no bounds....And as for pointing fingers at more successful clubs finances after our CE recently described ours as "dire", you are on an xmas wind-up, right??