No additional ticket allocation for Colchester-Norwich game

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"]the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that. [/quote]He was unemployed when we signed him!!

[Lambo 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="Lambo"]EvertonianColUfan... If your club wanted to appoint a manager and you were quotes cash plus players, would you have agreed?? If your chairman hadn''t been so ridiculous with the compensation requests this issue would have been resolved a long long time ago.[/quote]

the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that. As it turns out its ended up being a good thing cos Aidy is a far better manager and it turns out half the players hated Lambert and he destroyed all team spirit, but thats not the point
[/quote]

Really?? You''ve slipped down the league since Lambert left while we''ve climbed 18 places since he''s arrived and haven''t had team spirit this good for about 6 years and are actually now above you in the table and are one of the 2 most in-form teams along with Leeds.

And as mentioned, Lambert resigned from his post, he was a free agent when we appointed him.

[Colu_Tristan 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"]

the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that.
[/quote]

He was unemployed when we signed him!!
[/quote]

because you induced him to break his contract.[:|]

[Lambo 0]

Apologies for the excessive use of the word "and" lol. 

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="Lambo"]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="Lambo"]EvertonianColUfan... If your club wanted to appoint a manager and you were quotes cash plus players, would you have agreed?? If your chairman hadn''t been so ridiculous with the compensation requests this issue would have been resolved a long long time ago.[/quote]the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that. As it turns out its ended up being a good thing cos Aidy is a far better manager and it turns out half the players hated Lambert and he destroyed all team spirit, but thats not the point[/quote]

Really?? You''ve slipped down the league since Lambert left while we''ve climbed 18 places since he''s arrived and haven''t had team spirit this good for about 6 years and are actually now above you in the table and are one of the 2 most in-form teams along with Leeds.

And as mentioned, Lambert resigned from his post, he was a free agent when we appointed him.

[/quote]We;''ve slipped down the table? Yes because we were top after winning 2 games, under Lambert last year we were average to say the least, under Aidy we''ve been unbeatable at home and have getting some decent away results, he''s also got us some fantastic loan signings in Baath, O''Toole and Odejayi

[......and Smith must score. 1,368]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"]Norwich fans I come in piece ....... you''re getting one fifth of our ground so shut up and stop whining. [/quote]

Glad you said you come in piece.....You obviously don''t come in peace.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"]the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that. [/quote]He was unemployed when we signed him!![/quote]

because you induced him to break his contract.[:|]

[/quote]Did we? I suggest any tribunal will need some evidence to support this spurious allegation.

[Lambo 0]

The slipping down the table bit was a joke mate, calm down. It''s football, try not to take everything in life so seriously, especially when your on here telling us to stop whinging whilst whinging yourselves that we stole your manager.

According to you and your chairman your better off now so whats your beef? You should be paying us as we''ve done you such a massive favour.

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="evertoniancolufan"]Norwich fans I come in piece ....... you''re getting one fifth of our ground so shut up and stop whining. [/quote]

Glad you said you come in piece.....You obviously don''t come in peace.[/quote]lol ye, your stupid forum doesnt seem to allowe editing for typos! Unless I''m from and someone could tell me how, not that I intend to stick around

[missing in action? 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"]the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that. [/quote]He was unemployed when we signed him!![/quote]

because you induced him to break his contract.[:|]

[/quote]Did we? I suggest any tribunal will need some evidence to support this spurious allegation.[/quote]unless it can be proven there is no argument for it...

[Colu_Tristan 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"]

the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that.
[/quote]

He was unemployed when we signed him!!
[/quote]

because you induced him to break his contract.[:|]

[/quote]

Did we? I suggest any tribunal will need some evidence to support this spurious allegation.
[/quote]

Like being unveiled as Norwich''s manager the next morning despite his ''resignation'' being acknowledged as received, but not accepted.

[Sing Up The South Stand 0]

Obviously Lambert was "hated" by the players among other things, as I presume he would have been sacked anyway if he was that bad?

Ironically, we had a much poorer start than them to the season, including the 7-1 hammering, but we are now above Col U on goal difference!

[missing in action? 0]

[quote user="Colu_Tristan"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"]the fact is he should never have been appointed, he was OUR manager and was under contract with us and you had absolutely no right to just steal him like that. [/quote]He was unemployed when we signed him!![/quote]

because you induced him to break his contract.[:|]

[/quote]Did we? I suggest any tribunal will need some evidence to support this spurious allegation.[/quote]

Like being unveiled as Norwich''s manager the next morning despite his ''resignation'' being acknowledged as received, but not accepted.

[/quote]yeah but thats not physical evidence that we have induced him to break contract. Unless you have the powers to read Lambert''s mind and prove his thoughts and motives you cant prove anything. even if we are both agreed its what happened it means bugger all.

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="Mark Rivers..."]Obviously Lambert was "hated" by the players among other things, as I presume he would have been sacked anyway if he was that bad?

Ironically, we had a much poorer start than them to the season, including the 7-1 hammering, but we are now above Col U on goal difference![/quote]you''re above us cos you have much better players!

[missing in action? 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="Mark Rivers..."]Obviously Lambert was "hated" by the players among other things, as I presume he would have been sacked anyway if he was that bad?

Ironically, we had a much poorer start than them to the season, including the 7-1 hammering, but we are now above Col U on goal difference![/quote]you''re above us cos you have much better players![/quote]ok we will give you one. have cureton back.

[Colu_Tristan 0]

I''m sure you''ll mount your school boy defence, ''it wasn''t me sir!'', to no avail; you''ll be quite rightly deducted points, fined, and ordered to pay compensation in excess of a million pounds. If that puts you into administration, all the better!

[missing in action? 0]

[quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

I''m sure you''ll mount your school boy defence, ''it wasn''t me sir!'', to no avail; you''ll be quite rightly deducted points, fined, and ordered to pay compensation in excess of a million pounds. If that puts you into administration, all the better!

[/quote]innocent until proven guilty, why should we defend ourselves against something you cant prove?

[JTG 0]

If you were so determined to keep him then why did you idiotic chairman give us permission to speak to Lambert?

[Lord Flashheart 0]

I''m confused. Why are you whinging at us? As far as I can remember the decision to appoint Paul Lambert was taken by the directors, it had nothing whatsoever to do with the supporters. May I suggest you all email Mr McNally. It might be a little more constructive than sulking to us about it. [Y]

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

Like being unveiled as Norwich''s manager the next morning despite his ''resignation'' being acknowledged as received, but not accepted.

[/quote]You''ve been watching too much TV if you believe a resignation can be accepted or refused. You should be looking at Lamberts contract with yourselves to see what restitution you are entitled to, not chasing his next employers.(Unless of course you have proof we induced him to resign but the behaviour of your club suggests you don''t).

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="JTG"]If you were so determined to keep him then why did you idiotic chairman give us permission to speak to Lambert?[/quote]*Idiot Alert* HE DIDN''T! Thats the whole f***ing point. You appointed him ILLEGALLY, his resignation wasn''t accepted, the approach wasnt accepted yet you went ahead and appointed someone who was under contract with another club

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="JTG"]If you were so determined to keep him then why did you idiotic chairman give us permission to speak to Lambert?[/quote]*Idiot Alert* HE DIDN''T! Thats the whole f***ing point. You appointed him ILLEGALLY, his resignation wasn''t accepted, the approach wasnt accepted yet you went ahead and appointed someone who was under contract with another club[/quote]Again, why bleat on at us about it? It seems that your gripe is with those who appointed him, not with us. [:S]

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

Like being unveiled as Norwich''s manager the next morning despite his ''resignation'' being acknowledged as received, but not accepted.

[/quote]You''ve been watching too much TV if you believe a resignation can be accepted or refused. You should be looking at Lamberts contract with yourselves to see what restitution you are entitled to, not chasing his next employers.(Unless of course you have proof we induced him to resign but the behaviour of your club suggests you don''t).[/quote]erm, so your chaiman phones us and asks if they can appointed Lambert without interview, our chairman says no, tells Lambert about it, Lambert then resigns and is Norwich manager the next morning. I think that evidence will suffice!

[Lambo 0]

[quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

I''m sure you''ll mount your school boy defence, ''it wasn''t me sir!'', to no avail; you''ll be quite rightly deducted points, fined, and ordered to pay compensation in excess of a million pounds. If that puts you into administration, all the better!

[/quote]

 

LOL, are you Cowling in disguise? Dream on Pal, you''ll get 600K if your lucky and we''ll get a slap on the wrist.

[Lambo 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

Like being unveiled as Norwich''s manager the next morning despite his ''resignation'' being acknowledged as received, but not accepted.

[/quote]

You''ve been watching too much TV if you believe a resignation can be accepted or refused. You should be looking at Lamberts contract with yourselves to see what restitution you are entitled to, not chasing his next employers.(Unless of course you have proof we induced him to resign but the behaviour of your club suggests you don''t).
[/quote]

erm, so your chaiman phones us and asks if they can appointed Lambert without interview, our chairman says no, tells Lambert about it, Lambert then resigns and is Norwich manager the next morning. I think that evidence will suffice!
[/quote]

 

Once again... Cowling should have kept his mouth shut then!

[evertoniancolufan 0]

[quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="JTG"]If you were so determined to keep him then why did you idiotic chairman give us permission to speak to Lambert?[/quote]*Idiot Alert* HE DIDN''T! Thats the whole f***ing point. You appointed him ILLEGALLY, his resignation wasn''t accepted, the approach wasnt accepted yet you went ahead and appointed someone who was under contract with another club[/quote]Again, why bleat on at us about it? It seems that your gripe is with those who appointed him, not with us. [:S][/quote]never said I had a gripe with your fans, just stating some facts. That is why Cowling says your lot acted appallingly and that is why you shall only get 19% of our ground (far more than you''ll get from any other club)

[Lord Flashheart 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="Lord Flashheart"][quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="JTG"]If you were so determined to keep him then why did you idiotic chairman give us permission to speak to Lambert?[/quote]*Idiot Alert* HE DIDN''T! Thats the whole f***ing point. You appointed him ILLEGALLY, his resignation wasn''t accepted, the approach wasnt accepted yet you went ahead and appointed someone who was under contract with another club[/quote]Again, why bleat on at us about it? It seems that your gripe is with those who appointed him, not with us. [:S][/quote]never said I had a gripe with your fans, just stating some facts. That is why Cowling says your lot acted appallingly and that is why you shall only get 19% of our ground (far more than you''ll get from any other club)[/quote]But why state them here when you could contact the club and Mr McNally directly?Mr David McNally CEONORWICH CITYFOOTBALL CLUBCarrow RoadNorwichNR1 1JETel: 01603 760760There. Tell him he acted appallingly. [Y]

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="evertoniancolufan"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Colu_Tristan"]

Like being unveiled as Norwich''s manager the next morning despite his ''resignation'' being acknowledged as received, but not accepted.

[/quote]You''ve been watching too much TV if you believe a resignation can be accepted or refused. You should be looking at Lamberts contract with yourselves to see what restitution you are entitled to, not chasing his next employers.(Unless of course you have proof we induced him to resign but the behaviour of your club suggests you don''t).[/quote]erm, so your chaiman phones us and asks if they can appointed Lambert without interview, our chairman says no, tells Lambert about it, Lambert then resigns and is Norwich manager the next morning. I think that evidence will suffice![/quote]Look carefully at what you''ve written if you''re playing Barrack room lawyers. "Our chairman says no, tells Lambert about it, Lambert then resigns" So who approached Lambert, who informed him of our interest not us, that would be improper behaviour. It appears and is backed up in writing on your own club website in an editorial written by the calamitous Mr. Cowling that: Mr Bowkett contacted him (RC) and requested permission to appoint without an interview. RC told PL who spent a few days agonising before expressing his concern for his current position at Colchester to RC. Only at this point did the Clubs agree to a meeting. We didn''t tap him up, RC did it for us. [:D]

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Attleborough_Canary"]I ask you again Cam (for the 5th time with no reply thus far), do you not find your chairmans behaviour both juvenile and embarrassing? That statement sounds like it came from the brain of a 5 year old!![/quote]

No I don''t find his behaviour either juvenile or embarrassing.  It is the behaviour of a person who believes that the previous fine record of Norwich City in straight, by the book of rules dealings appears to have gone completely out of the window since the arrival of the all singing, all dancing Billy Big Thingies PLC.  Your attempt to ignore all the rules in acquiring Mr Lambert and Co and then to compound it by most unprofessional conduct in refusing, three times, to hold meetings at either CEO or Chairman level to see whether the matter might be resolved has led to a complete breakdown between the officials of the two clubs.

The fact that this may impinge on both sets of fans is, frankly, a by-product.  The breakdown is between the club officials.  I don''t think Norwich have ever been called before a Disciplinary Commission have they?  The fact that the Football League agree to hold one is only taken after an outline of the complaining clubs "evidence" is considered (they then have to submit the detail within 28 days) so it means at the very least the FL believe there is a case for Norwich to answer.  As you have refused to discuss it with us, aside from one meeting very early between the two CEO''s, we are left to take it to a meeting you CANNOT refuse to attend.

You have received the maximum allocation in full.  As others have explained, Leeds is very much a special case as many of our family supporters are unhappy with their general reputation and we lose a lot of family support at home games involving them.  It also caused considerable trouble among the home fans who were moved from their seats to accommodate them and that may well be a lesson learned by the Board. 

It is my view that the intransigence of your senior officials, particularly in declining on three occasions to even meet with us to discuss the situation, contributed in a major way to this situation.  There are many other matters not in the public domain but which will no doubt arise during the Disciplinary Commission hearing.

Simply put Billy Big Thingies PLC has met a seasoned East London boy (one of eight kids, dad worked down the Docks) who, in his own words, is "a bit of a street fighter."    Game on, chaps, or a "little scrimmage" as I believe you call it up there.

As to loss of money (if very much), I''m sure the Cowling family can absorb that one.  They are the only shareholders so what they say goes.  We don''t have much truck with this majority nonsense.  There aren''t any others.

You are certainly on the right track in boycotting the refreshments.  The beer was far better at Layer Road.[;)]

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

[quote user="Attleborough_Canary"]I ask you again Cam (for the 5th time with no reply thus far), do you not find your chairmans behaviour both juvenile and embarrassing? That statement sounds like it came from the brain of a 5 year old!![/quote]

No I don''t find his behaviour either juvenile or embarrassing.  It is the behaviour of a person who believes that the previous fine record of Norwich City in straight, by the book of rules dealings appears to have gone completely out of the window since the arrival of the all singing, all dancing Billy Big Thingies PLC.  Your attempt to ignore all the rules in acquiring Mr Lambert and Co and then to compound it by most unprofessional conduct in refusing, three times, to hold meetings at either CEO or Chairman level to see whether the matter might be resolved has led to a complete breakdown between the officials of the two clubs.

The fact that this may impinge on both sets of fans is, frankly, a by-product.  The breakdown is between the club officials.  I don''t think Norwich have ever been called before a Disciplinary Commission have they?  The fact that the Football League agree to hold one is only taken after an outline of the complaining clubs "evidence" is considered (they then have to submit the detail within 28 days) so it means at the very least the FL believe there is a case for Norwich to answer.  As you have refused to discuss it with us, aside from one meeting very early between the two CEO''s, we are left to take it to a meeting you CANNOT refuse to attend.

You have received the maximum allocation in full.  As others have explained, Leeds is very much a special case as many of our family supporters are unhappy with their general reputation and we lose a lot of family support at home games involving them.  It also caused considerable trouble among the home fans who were moved from their seats to accommodate them and that may well be a lesson learned by the Board. 

It is my view that the intransigence of your senior officials, particularly in declining on three occasions to even meet with us to discuss the situation, contributed in a major way to this situation.  There are many other matters not in the public domain but which will no doubt arise during the Disciplinary Commission hearing.

Simply put Billy Big Thingies PLC has met a seasoned East London boy (one of eight kids, dad worked down the Docks) who, in his own words, is "a bit of a street fighter."    Game on, chaps, or a "little scrimmage" as I believe you call it up there.

As to loss of money (if very much), I''m sure the Cowling family can absorb that one.  They are the only shareholders so what they say goes.  We don''t have much truck with this majority nonsense.  There aren''t any others.

You are certainly on the right track in boycotting the refreshments.  The beer was far better at Layer Road.[;)]

 

[/quote]Your chairman is still an arse.