Stephen Fry (press conference 5.30pm)

[. 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Cluck"][quote user="IncH_HigH "]

[quote user="Cluck"]Prepare for a season where Delia the ''Saviour'' makes a big media comeback. Another year in Division Three might just have seen the back of her.It will all end in tears.

[/quote]

You said that this time last year.

For a panto villain you''re not very good, at least learn some new lines.

[/quote]History has a funny way of repeating itself........

[/quote]As do your posts.[/quote]Lightweight.... Stick to your own little crowd where you think you actually matter (delusionally).  Last reply before I start charging you for the privilege..Turd.....

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

There is also perhaps this consideration [about recruiting Fry]. It increases the board numbers to seven. I have no reason to think the board isn''t totally united, but there might be circumstances under which there came a 3-3 split between the cuddly old guard and the young, ruthless, business-minded turks. ie, Bowkett, McNally and Phillips. Fry, one rather assumes, would generally be on the cuddly side of that divide.[/quote]Following on from that post of mine, for those of you (and I know there are a great many) who miss Camuldonum, he has posted the following on the Kick It Off site, which I pass on without comment as a public information service:---"Cannot say about his impact but a very nice guy who is genuinely happy to be on the Board. On the Board at the personal invitation of Delia and Michael. He''s put a bit of cash in but nothing staggering. You

will note, I hope, that neither McNally or Bowkett or the [chap] from

Archant have yet gone public in their praise to "welcome him to the

Board." and/or how much they are going to enjoy working with him "to

take this great club forward! (et al). "There

is a reason for that possibly. They weren''t consulted and only knew of

the "announcement" when Delia/Michael deigned to tell them. There was

no formal Board meeting to "invite" this new Director."Now if I

was a cynical old journalist who believed the rumours coming out of

Carrow Road that Delia is less than enamoured with some of McNally''s

"off field ideas" (nothing to do with the lads on the pitch) I would

think it might be time for the majority shareholders (along with Michael

Foulger who is firmly in their camp) to get a voting majority back

again. Yes, dear Delia is a bit dippy about footie but her old

man isn''t dippy about the construction of company boards. Absolutely no

way."4-3 now I believe. See what they did there? I believe Mr WJ should take the credit for the idea. Class I think."---

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]


There is also perhaps this consideration [about recruiting Fry]. It increases the board numbers to seven. I have no reason to think the board isn''t totally united, but there might be circumstances under which there came a 3-3 split between the cuddly old guard and the young, ruthless, business-minded turks. ie, Bowkett, McNally and Phillips.

Fry, one rather assumes, would generally be on the cuddly side of that divide.

[/quote]

Following on from that post of mine, for those of you (and I know there are a great many) who miss Camuldonum, he has posted the following on the Kick It Off site, which I pass on without comment as a public information service:

---

"Cannot say about his impact but a very nice guy who is genuinely happy to be on the Board. On the Board at the personal invitation of Delia and Michael. He''s put a bit of cash in but nothing staggering. You will note, I hope, that neither McNally or Bowkett or the [chap] from Archant have yet gone public in their praise to "welcome him to the Board." and/or how much they are going to enjoy working with him "to take this great club forward! (et al).

"There is a reason for that possibly. They weren''t consulted and only knew of the "announcement" when Delia/Michael deigned to tell them. There was no formal Board meeting to "invite" this new Director.

"Now if I was a cynical old journalist who believed the rumours coming out of Carrow Road that Delia is less than enamoured with some of McNally''s "off field ideas" (nothing to do with the lads on the pitch) I would think it might be time for the majority shareholders (along with Michael Foulger who is firmly in their camp) to get a voting majority back again. Yes, dear Delia is a bit dippy about footie but her old man isn''t dippy about the construction of company boards. Absolutely no way.

"4-3 now I believe. See what they did there? I believe Mr WJ should take the credit for the idea. Class I think."

---
[/quote]

I refer to my post of the 14th . As yet no one (other than them) knows how many or  from whom the shares were bought.

As the majority shareholders they ALWAYS have the final say.(when they really want it)

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Anyone know why that Camuldonadingdong isn''t posting on here anymore[:^)]

I miss him[:''(]

As the majority shareholders ALWAYS have the final say, when they really want it. Can I safely assume that when anything good happens down at Carra it''s because they didn''t want it[:^)]

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

There is also perhaps this consideration [about recruiting Fry]. It increases the board numbers to seven. I have no reason to think the board isn''t totally united, but there might be circumstances under which there came a 3-3 split between the cuddly old guard and the young, ruthless, business-minded turks. ie, Bowkett, McNally and Phillips. Fry, one rather assumes, would generally be on the cuddly side of that divide.[/quote]Following on from that post of mine, for those of you (and I know there are a great many) who miss Camuldonum, he has posted the following on the Kick It Off site, which I pass on without comment as a public information service:---"Cannot say about his impact but a very nice guy who is genuinely happy to be on the Board. On the Board at the personal invitation of Delia and Michael. He''s put a bit of cash in but nothing staggering. You will note, I hope, that neither McNally or Bowkett or the [chap] from Archant have yet gone public in their praise to "welcome him to the Board." and/or how much they are going to enjoy working with him "to take this great club forward! (et al). "There is a reason for that possibly. They weren''t consulted and only knew of the "announcement" when Delia/Michael deigned to tell them. There was no formal Board meeting to "invite" this new Director."Now if I was a cynical old journalist who believed the rumours coming out of Carrow Road that Delia is less than enamoured with some of McNally''s "off field ideas" (nothing to do with the lads on the pitch) I would think it might be time for the majority shareholders (along with Michael Foulger who is firmly in their camp) to get a voting majority back again. Yes, dear Delia is a bit dippy about footie but her old man isn''t dippy about the construction of company boards. Absolutely no way."4-3 now I believe. See what they did there? I believe Mr WJ should take the credit for the idea. Class I think."---[/quote]

As the majority shareholders they ALWAYS have the final say.(when they really want it)

 

[/quote]TB, that is, by and large true, although there is some evidence that that didn''t entirely apply over Gunn''s sacking. However, as someone not entirely unfamiliar with the way boardrooms work, I can  say that generally speaking company owners like to have a simple voting majority in the boardroom, for obvious reasons. Indeed, it''s rare for that not to be the case.It simplifies decision-making, for one thing. And although it is true that owners can fall back on the threat of using their majority shareholding, that is very much the nuclear option for emergencies. Apart from anything else, if the dissenters stick to their guns in the boardroom, the owners get forced into the very messy position of having to call an EGM to vote the dissenters off the board. Their majority shareholding has no bearing on the one director, one vote principle that applies in the boardroom.As to NCFC, I don''t know whether Cam is right about a possible split, and Fry being brought on board to shore up the S&J vote. However my original post, talking about the cuddly old guard and the ruthless young turks, was based on the educated (?) guess that there might be such a split, either now or in the future. Particularly over season ticket prices.

[The Butler 0]

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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]


There is also perhaps this consideration [about recruiting Fry]. It increases the board numbers to seven. I have no reason to think the board isn''t totally united, but there might be circumstances under which there came a 3-3 split between the cuddly old guard and the young, ruthless, business-minded turks. ie, Bowkett, McNally and Phillips.

Fry, one rather assumes, would generally be on the cuddly side of that divide.

[/quote]

Following on from that post of mine, for those of you (and I know there are a great many) who miss Camuldonum, he has posted the following on the Kick It Off site, which I pass on without comment as a public information service:

---

"Cannot say about his impact but a very nice guy who is genuinely happy to be on the Board. On the Board at the personal invitation of Delia and Michael. He''s put a bit of cash in but nothing staggering. You will note, I hope, that neither McNally or Bowkett or the [chap] from Archant have yet gone public in their praise to "welcome him to the Board." and/or how much they are going to enjoy working with him "to take this great club forward! (et al).

"There is a reason for that possibly. They weren''t consulted and only knew of the "announcement" when Delia/Michael deigned to tell them. There was no formal Board meeting to "invite" this new Director.

"Now if I was a cynical old journalist who believed the rumours coming out of Carrow Road that Delia is less than enamoured with some of McNally''s "off field ideas" (nothing to do with the lads on the pitch) I would think it might be time for the majority shareholders (along with Michael Foulger who is firmly in their camp) to get a voting majority back again. Yes, dear Delia is a bit dippy about footie but her old man isn''t dippy about the construction of company boards. Absolutely no way.

"4-3 now I believe. See what they did there? I believe Mr WJ should take the credit for the idea. Class I think."

---
[/quote]

As the majority shareholders they ALWAYS have the final say.(when they really want it)

 

[/quote]

TB, that is, by and large true, although there is some evidence that that didn''t entirely apply over Gunn''s sacking. However, as someone not entirely unfamiliar with the way boardrooms work, I can  say that generally speaking company owners like to have a simple voting majority in the boardroom, for obvious reasons. Indeed, it''s rare for that not to be the case.

It simplifies decision-making, for one thing. And although it is true that owners can fall back on the threat of using their majority shareholding, that is very much the nuclear option for emergencies. Apart from anything else, if the dissenters stick to their guns in the boardroom, the owners get forced into the very messy position of having to call an EGM to vote the dissenters off the board. Their majority shareholding has no bearing on the one director, one vote principle that applies in the boardroom.

As to NCFC, I don''t know whether Cam is right about a possible split, and Fry being brought on board to shore up the S&J vote. However my original post, talking about the cuddly old guard and the ruthless young turks, was based on the educated (?) guess that there might be such a split, either now or in the future. Particularly over season ticket prices.

[/quote]

PC my comments were based on my  experiences of owning companies and regardless of board makeup  if it was my money on the line in the end (after debate)my decision! (if it was that important)

When board members are employees, as such, then it is difficult if the "employer" wants something badly enough to stop it. Resignation is always an option.[:D]

I have no idea what experience Fry has of companies and board working in general do you?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Anyone know why that Camuldonadingdong isn''t posting on here anymore[:^)]

I miss him[:''(]

As the majority shareholders ALWAYS have the final say, when they really want it. Can I safely assume that when anything good happens down at Carra it''s because they didn''t want it[:^)]

 

[/quote]

Twisting the night away. Thanks Mr Checker.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

There is also perhaps this consideration [about recruiting Fry]. It increases the board numbers to seven. I have no reason to think the board isn''t totally united, but there might be circumstances under which there came a 3-3 split between the cuddly old guard and the young, ruthless, business-minded turks. ie, Bowkett, McNally and Phillips. Fry, one rather assumes, would generally be on the cuddly side of that divide.[/quote]Following on from that post of mine, for those of you (and I know there are a great many) who miss Camuldonum, he has posted the following on the Kick It Off site, which I pass on without comment as a public information service:---"Cannot say about his impact but a very nice guy who is genuinely happy to be on the Board. On the Board at the personal invitation of Delia and Michael. He''s put a bit of cash in but nothing staggering. You will note, I hope, that neither McNally or Bowkett or the [chap] from Archant have yet gone public in their praise to "welcome him to the Board." and/or how much they are going to enjoy working with him "to take this great club forward! (et al). "There is a reason for that possibly. They weren''t consulted and only knew of the "announcement" when Delia/Michael deigned to tell them. There was no formal Board meeting to "invite" this new Director."Now if I was a cynical old journalist who believed the rumours coming out of Carrow Road that Delia is less than enamoured with some of McNally''s "off field ideas" (nothing to do with the lads on the pitch) I would think it might be time for the majority shareholders (along with Michael Foulger who is firmly in their camp) to get a voting majority back again. Yes, dear Delia is a bit dippy about footie but her old man isn''t dippy about the construction of company boards. Absolutely no way."4-3 now I believe. See what they did there? I believe Mr WJ should take the credit for the idea. Class I think."---[/quote]

As the majority shareholders they ALWAYS have the final say.(when they really want it)

 

[/quote]TB, that is, by and large true, although there is some evidence that that didn''t entirely apply over Gunn''s sacking. However, as someone not entirely unfamiliar with the way boardrooms work, I can  say that generally speaking company owners like to have a simple voting majority in the boardroom, for obvious reasons. Indeed, it''s rare for that not to be the case.It simplifies decision-making, for one thing. And although it is true that owners can fall back on the threat of using their majority shareholding, that is very much the nuclear option for emergencies. Apart from anything else, if the dissenters stick to their guns in the boardroom, the owners get forced into the very messy position of having to call an EGM to vote the dissenters off the board. Their majority shareholding has no bearing on the one director, one vote principle that applies in the boardroom.As to NCFC, I don''t know whether Cam is right about a possible split, and Fry being brought on board to shore up the S&J vote. However my original post, talking about the cuddly old guard and the ruthless young turks, was based on the educated (?) guess that there might be such a split, either now or in the future. Particularly over season ticket prices.[/quote]

PC my comments were based on my  experiences of owning companies and regardless of board makeup  if it was my money on the line in the end (after debate)my decision! (if it was that important)

When board members are employees, as such, then it is difficult if the "employer" wants something badly enough to stop it. Resignation is always an option.[:D]

I have no idea what experience Fry has of companies and board working in general do you?

[/quote]TB, I don''t doubt your experience, although I''m not sure whether your companies were PLCs, which is what we''re talking about here. Are you saying that you were outvoted at your board meetings and simply ignored the vote?! Impressively dictatorial if so (and perhaps NCISA should beware?) but not the kind of thing that would be allowed at a PLC. And of course there is only one NCFC director who is also an employee, and that is McNally.But I entirely stick to my point that it would get extremely messy if  - for example - there was a 3-3 split between the Nasties and the Cuddlies (especially if Bowkett as chairman then had a casting vote on the Nasty side) and the Nasties stuck to their guns. Which strikes me as not implausible. That could only be solved by S&J calling an EGM, which would be horrific in pretty much every way, doing neither side any good and destabilising the club.For that reason, the idea that Fry (who is certainly on the board of the R&A) is there to shore up the Cuddly vote and avoid that kind of nuclear war strikes me as perfectly plausible.

[The Butler 0]

For that reason, the idea that Fry (who is certainly on the board of the R&A) is there to shore up the Cuddly vote and avoid that kind of nuclear war strikes me as perfectly plausible.

 

I really do like that mental image[:D]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="The Butler"]

For that reason, the idea that Fry (who is certainly on the board of the R&A) is there to shore up the Cuddly vote and avoid that kind of nuclear war strikes me as perfectly plausible.

 

I really do like that mental image[:D]

[/quote]Oh, I regard it as my job here to brighten peope''s days.[:D] I notice, meanwhile, you haven''t denied that you have dictatorial designs on NCISA...[;)]

[The Butler 0]

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

For that reason, the idea that Fry (who is certainly on the board of the R&A) is there to shore up the Cuddly vote and avoid that kind of nuclear war strikes me as perfectly plausible.

 

I really do like that mental image[:D]

[/quote]

Oh, I regard it as my job here to brighten peope''s days.[:D] I notice, meanwhile, you haven''t denied that you have dictatorial designs on NCISA...[;)]

[/quote]

Totally deny it.

Just lending a hand.

I never have been a dictator, I much prefer persuassion.

The only designs I have on NCISA is the new logo[:D]

NCISA is a democracy and I would not want it any other way and I will shout and scream to make sure it is[;)]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="The Butler"]NCISA is a democracy..............[/quote]And Tilly will kick out anyone who says different![;)]

[Go Wash Your Mouth Out Son 0]

Lol [;)]

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Doesn''t this whole proposition turn on the need for one of the most admired intellects of our culture to vote as told and not in accordance with his concscience or the merits of the argument?

Why would Fry or indeed anybody want to do that and where is the evidence to event hint at that being his intention?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

Doesn''t this whole proposition turn on the need for one of the most admired intellects of our culture to vote as told and not in accordance with his concscience or the merits of the argument?

Why would Fry or indeed anybody want to do that and where is the evidence to event hint at that being his intention?

[/quote]

I will be interested in the answers that are made to this totally valid and well made point. I suspect they will be along the lines of "Ass summat to do wiv that wicked cook Deeeeeeeeeliar so we don''t need no evidence thass his intention".

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

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

Anyone know why that Camuldonadingdong isn''t posting on here anymore[:^)]

I miss him[:''(]

As the majority shareholders ALWAYS have the final say, when they really want it. Can I safely assume that when anything good happens down at Carra it''s because they didn''t want it[:^)]

 

[/quote]

Twisting the night away. Thanks Mr Checker.

[/quote]

No get out of jail card in brackets this time Butler[:^)]

 

[The Butler 0]

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

Doesn''t this whole proposition turn on the need for one of the most admired intellects of our culture to vote as told and not in accordance with his concscience or the merits of the argument?

Why would Fry or indeed anybody want to do that and where is the evidence to event hint at that being his intention?

[/quote]

I will be interested in the answers that are made to this totally valid and well made point. I suspect they will be along the lines of "Ass summat to do wiv that wicked cook Deeeeeeeeeliar so we don''t need no evidence thass his intention".

 

[/quote]

Then it''s your little world so you would not believe it any way.

All some are doing is putting their view you are putting yours.

Again No one has concrete evidence,at this stage, either way.

If DS can make false statements about investment,Gunns appointment etc etc, why do you always assume that she would make a Persil shirt look dirty.

I for one hope she is looking after her own interests because at present they go hand in hand with the clubs.

Surprising though that Blackburn  Rovers, those star of the Prem have now got a 300million investment (by someone who has never been in Lancs) and quote"is in for the long term" and we get a PR man back on the board.[:D]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

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

Doesn''t this whole proposition turn on the need for one of the most admired intellects of our culture to vote as told and not in accordance with his concscience or the merits of the argument?

Why would Fry or indeed anybody want to do that and where is the evidence to event hint at that being his intention?

[/quote]

I will be interested in the answers that are made to this totally valid and well made point. I suspect they will be along the lines of "Ass summat to do wiv that wicked cook Deeeeeeeeeliar so we don''t need no evidence thass his intention".

 

[/quote]

Then it''s your little world so you would not believe it any way.

All some are doing is putting their view you are putting yours.

Again No one has concrete evidence,at this stage, either way.

If DS can make false statements about investment,Gunns appointment etc etc, why do you always assume that she would make a Persil shirt look dirty.

I for one hope she is looking after her own interests because at present they go hand in hand with the clubs.

Surprising though that Blackburn  Rovers, those star of the Prem have now got a 300million investment (by someone who has never been in Lancs) and quote"is in for the long term" and we get a PR man back on the board.[:D]

[/quote]

But Cambridge''s totally valid and well made point was about the integrity of Stephen Fry. I take it your mistrust of Deeeliar stretches to a mistrust of his intentions too[:|]

 

[morty 0]

Seriously, how the frikken hell did we get to 22 pages on this subject?[:|]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="morty"]Seriously, how the frikken hell did we get to 22 pages on this subject?

[:|]
[/quote]

Are you trying to be Kofi Annan while Beaus is away[:^)]

[;)]

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="morty"]Seriously, how the frikken hell did we get to 22 pages on this subject?[:|][/quote]

Are you trying to be Kofi Annan while Beaus is away[:^)]

[;)]

 

[/quote]Lol, yes.[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

Doesn''t this whole proposition turn on the need for one of the most admired intellects of our culture to vote as told and not in accordance with his concscience or the merits of the argument?

Why would Fry or indeed anybody want to do that and where is the evidence to event hint at that being his intention?

[/quote]CC, I certainly haven''t suggested Fry is any kind of yes man who will vote against what his reason tells him is right. However it is a pretty safe assumption that over time S&J have formed a fairly accurate of what Fry''s ethos, for want of a better word, is as far as Norwich City is concerned, and that - very broadly - it is in tune with theirs. Not that he will agree with them on everything, if there is a stronger argument the other way, but that their general philosophies are similar.And it is a fair assumption that - in very general terms - they agree on having a very community-orientated club with a policy of Affordable Family Football. Not every detail of that policy, necessarily, but the basic ethos. And it is precisely Fry''s intellect that will have convinced him of that.So, no. The idea (about which I stress I have yet to be convinced) that there is (or will be) some boardroom split between the Nasties and the Cuddlies, and that Fry has been brought in on the side of the Cuddlies, doesn''t turn on him being a yes man. On the contrary, if it turns on anything it turns on him staying true to his intellect.

[. 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

Doesn''t this whole proposition turn on the need for one of the most admired intellects of our culture to vote as told and not in accordance with his concscience or the merits of the argument?

Why would Fry or indeed anybody want to do that and where is the evidence to event hint at that being his intention?

[/quote]CC, I certainly haven''t suggested Fry is any kind of yes man who will vote against what his reason tells him is right. However it is a pretty safe assumption that over time S&J have formed a fairly accurate of what Fry''s ethos, for want of a better word, is as far as Norwich City is concerned, and that - very broadly - it is in tune with theirs. Not that he will agree with them on everything, if there is a stronger argument the other way, but that their general philosophies are similar.And it is a fair assumption that - in very general terms - they agree on having a very community-orientated club with a policy of Affordable Family Football. Not every detail of that policy, necessarily, but the basic ethos. And it is precisely Fry''s intellect that will have convinced him of that.So, no. The idea (about which I stress I have yet to be convinced) that there is (or will be) some boardroom split between the Nasties and the Cuddlies, and that Fry has been brought in on the side of the Cuddlies, doesn''t turn on him being a yes man. On the contrary, if it turns on anything it turns on him staying true to his intellect.[/quote]As Fry is bi-polar he will be intermittently nasty and cuddly depending on his mental state.....Equally regarding intellect... you will find those who would be described as ''academic'' are often as thick as planks when it comes to common sense. Stephen Fry is a joke in the boardroom and just another sign of how out of touch Delia Smith is with reality.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I see where this is going[8-|]

Soon it will be "It was only a big joke really" [:D]

And all those "Fry doubters" will save face yet again[H]

[|-)]

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I see where this is going[8-|]

Soon it will be "It was only a big joke really" [:D]

And all those "Fry doubters" will save face yet again[H]

[|-)]

 

[/quote]

Nothing to do with the serious business of running our club should ever be viewed as a joke.

How veyr dare you!!

Save face who the **** from.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mook"]
For ****s sake. We have some long-awaited publicity and representation through one of Britian''s universally loved figures, not some Arabic Sheikh or Russian oligarch who obtained their money through oil-related persecution, and WE STILL CAN''T BE HAPPY?
[/quote]

well if you want publicity related to celebrities rather than the football may I suggest you buy the latest rag containing a pic of Jordan!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Romantic"]What he''s doing here is allocating a portion of his not inconsiderable energy to the development of the club philosophically, culturally and .....
[/quote]

which results in how many league points?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]

We''ve always known this.  The club have been massively in debt for years, and it can''t be news that Delia doesn''t have endless millions of pounds to pump into the club.

[/quote]

You''ve missed the point (not about the clubs debts) ......have a look at the Club Accounts.

 

[Herb 0]

[quote user="Cluck"]Equally regarding intellect... you will find those who would be described as ''academic'' are often as thick as planks when it comes to common sense. Stephen Fry is a joke in the boardroom and just another sign of how out of touch Delia Smith is with reality.[/quote]Do you know him personally? Because if not you know as much as 99.999% of people, which is sweet FA.Stating opinions as facts is poor form.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]---

....and the smaller-scale Fry level, with his worldwide networking (real and virtual) fuelling interest in the club and so - perhaps - money.

[/quote]

Given how long Stephen Fry has been around Delia and NCFC., don''t you think he would have pulled in some cash by now if this was a credible route for new investment?