Come and meet Kevin Drinkell and Ken Brown

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Gazza"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"]

Just a reminder that there will be a question and answer session with City legends Kevin Drinkell and Ken Brown on Friday 26th November at Number 10 Bowling Centre, Bowthorpe, starting at 7.30. Entry is free for Ncisa members and non members can join on the door for just £5.

( for those who haven''t lost the will to live)

[/quote]

---

Perhaps it might be as well to give in to the inevitable and rebrand it as a debate between the various particpants on this thread.[:D][;)][:D]

 

[/quote]

 

We will be organising a further forum after Christmas which will involve Tilly and Nutty in a winner takes all mud wrestling competition. Naked[+o(]

[/quote]

Messy!!!, bit too scary for me!. 

As an alternative how about the two of them could give us a repertoire of their extensive wardrobes in a catwalk show for charity perhaps to support Comic Relief?!?!?

 

[/quote]

 

Lovely old job! I''m sure we can arrange something[Y]

 

I see the young guns are out tonight, maybe I''ll have more joy there...

 

Is there any chance that anyone could look back and say..."maybe we were wrong"?

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

been what they wanted to hearLooks like nobody is up for debating this any further.....

I wonder why?

 

Now I know my friends at NCISA appreciated me trying to keep this thread at the top of the board so I''ll just throw something else into the mix : -

 

Remember the web chat with Alan Bowkett last year? Well I was having a little look at that a while ago and it really is like a "who''s who" from this messageboard. Even questions from NCISA committee members as well as some of the most anti Delia posters on this board. It seems the questions were loaded to prove a point but the answers weren''t what these people were looking for. Not surprisingly it appears they all scuttled off with their tails between their legs and didn''t bring any of it back to this board. I wonder if that would have been the case if the answers had had been what they wanted to hear.

Here''s one of my favourites  : -

 

Q : You publically challenged how Smith & Jones were running the club back in May. Apart from their obvious love of the club, what have you seen to change your opinion?

 

Bowkett : I must correct you, I publicly challenged how Neil Doncaster was running the Club. As for Delia and the two Michaels, I think their outstanding contribution has been the appointment of David McNally as Chief Executive - a consummate businessman who has a decade of football experience at the highest level. Paul, David and I are now running the Football Club with the complete support of the substantial shareholders. When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals, as I would wish any non-executive director to be and then they have been some of the most supportive non-executive directors I have ever worked with and I can assure you I have worked with a lot. Let''s not forget, I did not seek this job and it was Delia and Michael that realised some fundamental changes had to occur and they spent considerable time persuading me to undertake the task.

 

[^o)]Hmmmmmmmm.... Owning the club / running the club the same thing? Perhaps not according to this. But then, those who know best......

know best[;)]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

been what they wanted to hearLooks like nobody is up for debating this any further.....

I wonder why?

 

Now I know my friends at NCISA appreciated me trying to keep this thread at the top of the board so I''ll just throw something else into the mix : -

 

Remember the web chat with Alan Bowkett last year? Well I was having a little look at that a while ago and it really is like a "who''s who" from this messageboard. Even questions from NCISA committee members as well as some of the most anti Delia posters on this board. It seems the questions were loaded to prove a point but the answers weren''t what these people were looking for. Not surprisingly it appears they all scuttled off with their tails between their legs and didn''t bring any of it back to this board. I wonder if that would have been the case if the answers had had been what they wanted to hear.

Here''s one of my favourites  : -

 

Q : You publically challenged how Smith & Jones were running the club back in May. Apart from their obvious love of the club, what have you seen to change your opinion?

 

Bowkett : I must correct you, I publicly challenged how Neil Doncaster was running the Club. As for Delia and the two Michaels, I think their outstanding contribution has been the appointment of David McNally as Chief Executive - a consummate businessman who has a decade of football experience at the highest level. Paul, David and I are now running the Football Club with the complete support of the substantial shareholders. When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals, as I would wish any non-executive director to be and then they have been some of the most supportive non-executive directors I have ever worked with and I can assure you I have worked with a lot. Let''s not forget, I did not seek this job and it was Delia and Michael that realised some fundamental changes had to occur and they spent considerable time persuading me to undertake the task.

 

[^o)]Hmmmmmmmm.... Owning the club / running the club the same thing? Perhaps not according to this. But then, those who know best......

know best[;)]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

There could be several answers to this nutty:-

1. Their outstanding contribution in 14 years was to bring D. McNally to the club. Agree but what have they been doing for all those other years.

2. If I had just been appointed as chairman of a board I don''t think I would say that the remaining members were rubbish, would you?(just remember Doncaster was an employee of the club)

3. I would not expect, in their position, having got Bowkett and Mcnally in, to be anything other than supportive. A great deal of money is riding on those two bringing home the bacon. If either had walked out the consequences would have been dire.

4. Paul David and I are NOW running the...etc.Doesn''t really say that D.M &M were not before that.(with a board of Five it would seem likely)

What has happened since that dark period of Gunn and relegation has been very promising. Long may it continue.

If the cunning plan works then in seven years the debt will be cleared (D.McNally)  Does that include the debt owed to the majority shareholders?

Oh, before you say NCISA is anti anything this is a post from me without consultation and without involving anyone other than me.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

been what they wanted to hearLooks like nobody is up for debating this any further.....

I wonder why?

 

Now I know my friends at NCISA appreciated me trying to keep this thread at the top of the board so I''ll just throw something else into the mix : -

 

Remember the web chat with Alan Bowkett last year? Well I was having a little look at that a while ago and it really is like a "who''s who" from this messageboard. Even questions from NCISA committee members as well as some of the most anti Delia posters on this board. It seems the questions were loaded to prove a point but the answers weren''t what these people were looking for. Not surprisingly it appears they all scuttled off with their tails between their legs and didn''t bring any of it back to this board. I wonder if that would have been the case if the answers had had been what they wanted to hear.

Here''s one of my favourites  : -

 

Q : You publically challenged how Smith & Jones were running the club back in May. Apart from their obvious love of the club, what have you seen to change your opinion?

 

Bowkett : I must correct you, I publicly challenged how Neil Doncaster was running the Club. As for Delia and the two Michaels, I think their outstanding contribution has been the appointment of David McNally as Chief Executive - a consummate businessman who has a decade of football experience at the highest level. Paul, David and I are now running the Football Club with the complete support of the substantial shareholders. When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals, as I would wish any non-executive director to be and then they have been some of the most supportive non-executive directors I have ever worked with and I can assure you I have worked with a lot. Let''s not forget, I did not seek this job and it was Delia and Michael that realised some fundamental changes had to occur and they spent considerable time persuading me to undertake the task.

 

[^o)]Hmmmmmmmm.... Owning the club / running the club the same thing? Perhaps not according to this. But then, those who know best......

know best[;)]

 

---

---

 

 

That is hopelessly naive. Of course Bowkett is not now going to admit his open letter was an attack on Smith and Jones. That would be rather embarrassing. But it was. A savage attack, and an attack on the way they were running the club.

If they were absentee landlords who had absolutely nothing to do with the club it might be possible to justify some distinction between owning the club and running it.

But they are not absentee landlords. They are directors (with a boardroom majority) who have been scrutinising – and approving or rejecting - every major decision. Indeed Bowkett says as much in referring to how he has found them since becoming chairman:

 

 

”When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals.”

And as owner/directors they have been the people choosing not just the other directors, but the senior managers as well, including the key position of chief executive. If the chief executive is no good, which according to Bowkett he wasn''t, that is S&J’s fault. Ultimately the buck stops with S&J. And Bowkett knew that when he and Nigel Bertram wrote that letter, reproduced below, with helpful comments:

 

Open letter to Roger Munby, chairman of Norwich City Football Club, from Nigel Bertram and Alan Bowkett, chairman and deputy chairman of the NCFC Associate Directors Group

Dear Roger,

As you know we are respectively the chairman and deputy chairman of NCFC''s Associate Directors Group which is a team of local businessmen and supporters who collectively own approximately 5pc of the equity in NCFC plus substantial sums in the preference shares. Please note the views in this letter are our own.

Over the past five years we have met with you and Neil Doncaster on a number of occasions to see how the skills of our group can be utilised for the greater good of the NCFC family.

Sadly, our advice has been dismissed the majority of the time.

Perhaps our only success has been the introduction and financing of the Employee of the Year Awards for non-footballing colleagues at the club, an event you have now decided to abandon.

You are aware that we have been dissatisfied with the executive management of the club for a number of years, culminating in our preparation of a financial analysis of the situation and strategic options open to us in December 2007.

Who oversees the executive management that Bowkett and Bertram are attacking? The directors, of course. Smith and Jones and Foulger. And who chooses the directors? Smith and Jones. So if the club is being badly run then it is Smith and Jones’s fault. That is a direct attack the way Smith and Jones run the club.

To the board''s continuing shame you categorically refused to meet your own shareholders to discuss the proposals; proposals that were developed with the sole aim of improving the situation.

NOTE THAT; “To the board’s continuing shame.” Not just Munby and Doncaster. The whole board, including Smith and Jones and Foulger.

 We now know that you believed we were in concert with Peter Cullum as you were then in negotiations with him in complete secrecy.

Ironically, no member of our group knows this man and it was only through logic and financial analysis that we concluded that some £25m needed to be invested, a similar sum to that calculated by Mr Cullum''s advisors.

We are acutely conscious that all the directors love the club and have taken decisions that they felt were the correct ones at the time.

However, good intent is not the only skill required to manage an enterprise: skill, leadership, vision and empathy with all stakeholders are essential.

The board does not have these attributes.

AGAIN: The whole board. Not one member of the board’s has these attributes.


The mistakes during your stewardship are legion and well documented in correspondence and internet postings throughout the county and beyond.

AGAIN: These mistakes that Bowkett and Bertram say were made by Munby and Doncaster were overseen and approved by Smith and Jones and Foulger, as fellow directors making up a boardroom majority.

Suffice to say we are now in the third tier of English football, our financial situation is dire, we do not have a team, the loyal supporters are distressed but we do have the best ground in the third division.

Under your chairmanship and Neil Doncaster''s executive leadership the quality of our product has deteriorated every year since 2004, losses have continued to mount and debt piled up.

The only honourable course open to you both is to resign forthwith without compensation, the board to search for a new chief executive, appoint a new chairman from the local business community and work with the current majority shareholders to get us out of this mess.

 OK, but if this is an attack on Smith and Jones (and Foulger) as well as Munby and Doncaster, why did B&B not call for Smith and Jones to resign? Because they were being politically clever and calling for something they might achieve, as opposed to something unachievable. If they had called for S&J to go they would have had to come up with alternative owners, and thta plainly was beyond them.


So For the avoidance of doubt, neither of us seeks to join the board.

Unfortunately, we do not expect you to listen to our arguments alone and therefore we will be consulting with various stakeholder groups to ensure that we create a sufficient groundswell of public opinion that will be resolute, indefatigable and irresistible.

We must end this uncertainty now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Option 5 : Bowkett is a big fat liar looks favourite then[;)]

 

How about this one : -

 

Q: What is your vision for NCFC over the next 5-10 years. And what benchmarks have you established to measure progress? Good short term progress so far. Well done, Chairman.

Alan Bowkett: We have immediate goals and then a medium-term plan which is in the embryonic stage at present. Our immediate goals are to gain promotion and remain solvent with a view of achieving promotion this year. David McNally has put forward a business model that means that we can be self-funding in the Championship and in League One in the short term. However, and I make these comments very markedly, we should not underestimate the financial position the Club is in and the Board is working extremely hard to ensure that all available monies are targeted towards football and not other commercial interests around the Club. Once we are in the Championship we are confident that we can conslidate our position both financially and in football performance within our own means. However, if we are to make a sustained bid for a position in the Premiership we clearly will need an injection of new funds. This may mean new ownership - something I know the current owners are fully aligned to. However, this is in the medium term and I must emphasise our key objective at the moment is to return to the Championship.

 

Is this more naivety and more Bowkett lies?

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

And going back to the original point about the summer transfer window and Gunny - I didn''t consider that Grant Holt could have been lying to try and reduce his sentence. Do you think so?

 

"If the things people say don''t fit with what we believe then they''re lying and you''d be naive to suggest otherwise, that way we still now best"[;)]

 

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Option 5 : Bowkett is a big fat liar looks favourite then[;)]

 

How about this one : -

 

Q: What is your vision for NCFC over the next 5-10 years. And what benchmarks have you established to measure progress? Good short term progress so far. Well done, Chairman.

Alan Bowkett: We have immediate goals and then a medium-term plan which is in the embryonic stage at present. Our immediate goals are to gain promotion and remain solvent with a view of achieving promotion this year. David McNally has put forward a business model that means that we can be self-funding in the Championship and in League One in the short term. However, and I make these comments very markedly, we should not underestimate the financial position the Club is in and the Board is working extremely hard to ensure that all available monies are targeted towards football and not other commercial interests around the Club. Once we are in the Championship we are confident that we can conslidate our position both financially and in football performance within our own means. However, if we are to make a sustained bid for a position in the Premiership we clearly will need an injection of new funds. This may mean new ownership - something I know the current owners are fully aligned to. However, this is in the medium term and I must emphasise our key objective at the moment is to return to the Championship.

 

Is this more naivety and more Bowkett lies?

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

Not sure what this post is an answer to. Certainly not mine. But as it happens I have said all along I believe Smith and Jones are willing to sell up if the right offer (for the club as opposed to the right offer for their bank balance) comes along. So I don''t for a moment think Bowkett, who doesn''t strike me as stupid, is being naive in believing them. I think he is quite right to.

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I know it wasn''t you Purple but there have been plenty on here who say differently and have continued to say differently since that web chat. Some of who were actually involved with that chat on the day.

Now then Butler, could we have 5 possibilities what that could have meant?

 

 

[Duncan Edwards 0]

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

been what they wanted to hearLooks like nobody is up for debating this any further.....

I wonder why?

 

Now I know my friends at NCISA appreciated me trying to keep this thread at the top of the board so I''ll just throw something else into the mix : -

 

Remember the web chat with Alan Bowkett last year? Well I was having a little look at that a while ago and it really is like a "who''s who" from this messageboard. Even questions from NCISA committee members as well as some of the most anti Delia posters on this board. It seems the questions were loaded to prove a point but the answers weren''t what these people were looking for. Not surprisingly it appears they all scuttled off with their tails between their legs and didn''t bring any of it back to this board. I wonder if that would have been the case if the answers had had been what they wanted to hear.

Here''s one of my favourites  : -

 

Q : You publically challenged how Smith & Jones were running the club back in May. Apart from their obvious love of the club, what have you seen to change your opinion?

 

Bowkett : I must correct you, I publicly challenged how Neil Doncaster was running the Club. As for Delia and the two Michaels, I think their outstanding contribution has been the appointment of David McNally as Chief Executive - a consummate businessman who has a decade of football experience at the highest level. Paul, David and I are now running the Football Club with the complete support of the substantial shareholders. When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals, as I would wish any non-executive director to be and then they have been some of the most supportive non-executive directors I have ever worked with and I can assure you I have worked with a lot. Let''s not forget, I did not seek this job and it was Delia and Michael that realised some fundamental changes had to occur and they spent considerable time persuading me to undertake the task.

 

[^o)]Hmmmmmmmm.... Owning the club / running the club the same thing? Perhaps not according to this. But then, those who know best......

know best[;)]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

There could be several answers to this nutty:-

1. Their outstanding contribution in 14 years was to bring D. McNally to the club. Agree but what have they been doing for all those other years.

2. If I had just been appointed as chairman of a board I don''t think I would say that the remaining members were rubbish, would you?(just remember Doncaster was an employee of the club)

3. I would not expect, in their position, having got Bowkett and Mcnally in, to be anything other than supportive. A great deal of money is riding on those two bringing home the bacon. If either had walked out the consequences would have been dire.

4. Paul David and I are NOW running the...etc.Doesn''t really say that D.M &M were not before that.(with a board of Five it would seem likely)

What has happened since that dark period of Gunn and relegation has been very promising. Long may it continue.

If the cunning plan works then in seven years the debt will be cleared (D.McNally)  Does that include the debt owed to the majority shareholders?

Oh, before you say NCISA is anti anything this is a post from me without consultation and without involving anyone other than me.

[/quote]

 

Interesting twist on things Butler, I guess it all depends on how you read what he said.

1. I took it to mean their outstanding contribution since he has been directly involved. Bowkett never said anything about 14 years, to be fair I wouldn''t expect him to either as Delia hasn''t been majority shareholder for that long, 14 years ago would be about the time Chase was getting Chased out.

2. Probably fair enough, you wouldn''t expect him to. Does this make him just another sheep?

3. Where does the idea of either of them walking come from? Bowkett basically gives credit to the support offered by the majority shareholders and you somehow take from that the idea that if they hadn''t offered the support that they offered, that the people they recruited onto the board would have walked out. Talk about pulling a negative out of a positive.

4. Laughable. Read the first sentence of Bowkett''s response. I''m no expert but I would suggest that it strongly implies that Doncaster had been running the club.

I''m glad that this doesn''t represent the views of NCISA as I''m still considering attending the forthcoming event, of course that would involve me joining the organisation.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I know it wasn''t you Purple but there have been plenty on here who say differently and have continued to say differently since that web chat. Some of who were actually involved with that chat on the day.

 

[/quote]

 

---

---

 

Indeed, Nutty. I have used that comment from Bowkett to bolster my case that Smith and Jones are willing to sell. In fact Bowkett''s comment is a tricky one for the anti-Deliarites to explain away. Either S&J are telling the truth, and Bowkett is right to believe them. Or they''re lying, and Bowkett is a naive, overly-trusting idiot...
 


Just to return, (for the last time?[;)]) to this point that S&J are not just owners who have nothing to do with the running of the club but did run the club in the time of the fuddy-duddy old guard and still do now we have an exciting new regime.


Of course no-one is suggesting they bother themselves wih how many paper clips the accounts department needs. And I don''t doubt Bowkett and McNally have autonomy over bigger issues than that. Just as Doncaster did. But the big picture stuff all goes through S&J. Bowkett says it himself:
 
 
---
 
"When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals."

---
 
 
"Proposals" is one key word. "Difficult" is the other. Bowkett and McNally, and Lambert, put forward proposals on the big, difficult issues. But the board decides. Smith and Jones, and Foulger, and Phillips, and now Fry. They all get to vote yea or nay to what Bowkett and McNally propose.


So whatever, for example, McNally (with or without Bowkett) proposed on the big issue of next season''s ticketing policies and prices will have gone to the board. Not as a fait accompli but as a proposal to be voted on by directors who are either Smith and Jones or people invited by them to be directors. That is running the club.

 

---

 

[Mello Yello 2,282]

Was there joint consultation and a collective vote by all members of the NCFC board of Directors, on whether to appoint Stephen Fry onto the board?

 

Or, was Stephen just invited and appointed onto the board by the majority shareholders?

 

I do like and admire Stephen a lot......Although, I personally do think (twitter he not) that he will struggle to attract or entice credible and serious investment to NCFC.....

 

Oh.....and what is the actual role of that Archant chap, Mr Phillips, again?

 

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

Was there joint consultation and a collective vote by all members of the NCFC board of Directors, on whether to appoint Stephen Fry onto the board?

 

Or, was Stephen just invited and appointed onto the board by the majority shareholders?

 

I do like and admire Stephen a lot......Although, I personally do think (twitter he not) that he will struggle to attract or entice credible and serious investment to NCFC.....

 

Oh.....and what is the actual role of that Archant chap, Mr Phillips, again?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

1. That has never been said. The likelihood is that Fry was invited on by the majority shareholders. And there is nothing unusual in that. Normal business practice. Just as Bowkett and Phillips were invited on to the board.

2. Who knows, but Fry is a consummate networker, with contacts in various sectors of British life, and probably abroad as well. Whether that will produce anything is another matter, but it opens the slim possibility to investment from areas untapped by other football clubs. Bear in mind, also, that Fry''s father was well-known in Norfolk business circles.

 

3. I don''t think Phillips has a role as such, being a non-executive director, in the way Bowkett and McNally do. Foulger, for example, doesn''t have a role. But as a director of  a media group Phillips should have extensive business contacts in the region. In his position at Archant people will want to know him. And that might benefit the club.

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

 

Only just realised you''d posted back Purple. Last time I checked there was a tumbleweed blowing by. Nobody else is prepared to consider that they don''t know best.

 

Q : You publically challenged how Smith & Jones were running the club back in May.

 

Bowkett : I must correct you, I publicly challenged how Neil Doncaster was running the Club.

 

 

Now he''s quite clear about this. He could have corrected the questioner and said he publicly challenged the board. He could have not corrected the questioner and said he publicly challenged the board. He could even have sidestepped that part of the question and said what his experience had been since he''d been chairman. So I''m afraid, with the evidence of my own eyes and with no reason or agenda to disbelieve Bowkett, naive or not I''m going with his answer.

 

 

As for the running of the club - difficult decisions and proposals, especially if the proposals involve a change of accepted policy, surely they would have to be ratified by the board. And the questioning is quite understandable. But what''s the point of employing someone to run your business and then disarming them when they are doing just that? I don''t care who you are, whether you''re McNally or Doncaster you won''t wear that.

 

 

Bearing this in mind I don''t doubt for one minute that McNally is running the club. He takes those proposals to the board and yes they would question him rather than blindly accept. but surely they would have to convince him that he''d got it wrong to have the proposals overruled. The CE runs the club, that''s what he''s paid to do.

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Snidey little digs on two threads so far this evening Nutty aimed in the direction of NCISA.Provocation is your new slant i take it? Pathetic and childish so i await the smilies,Melloesque photos,Norfolk dialect posting and the new in expression which you have invented all by your clever little self to replace the inner circle ie Those that know best..............excuse me but yawn!

[nutty nigel 7,513]

 

I take issue with that Tilly old boy. I don''t do snidey. I say what I think. And I do it with honesty. Not in a dishonest and underhand way. Now what was snidey on this and what was the other post?

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 

I take issue with that Tilly old boy. I don''t do snidey. I say what I think. And I do it with honesty. Not in a dishonest and underhand way. Now what was snidey on this and what was the other post?

 

 

[/quote]

Up on your almighty high horse yet again Mr I Must Always Have The Last Word Because I Am Always Right Edwards.

1. On this thread...."Nobody else is prepared to consider that they don''t know best" whilst making reference to tumbleweed.You were so upset that The Butler,Beau or Tilly had not got back to you.Now please do not tell me that your "always knows best" new buzz phrase has not been repeatedly been used by you with reference to NCISA.

2.On the Derby thread started by Beau....."(but some may say Delia)[;)].Now why the sarcastic wink? Could it be you have been trying to drum up that NCISA are currently embarking on an anti Delia mission? After all you did have a right dig and when The Butler asked what you were on about Purple came along and you were able to swerve a reply...and there was silly old me thinking it was only people who swerved answering you.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Your paranoid Tilly! That comment about to Kev about Taddy and his post count had nothing to do with NCISA apart from it being on a NCISA thread. The other comment about Pete''s pin was a smiley because of the tongue in cheek comments from The Butler thanking me for keeping this thread near the top of the board.

 

On this thread the comments were because you were happy to debate with me until there was a possibility that I could be right. Notice could be. Previously you were quite prepared to debate the issue and gave as many "Mr I Am Always Right " to me as I gave "those who always know best" to you. Even in this latest post we have "your almighty high horse"  and "Mr I Must Always Have The Last Word Because I Am Always Right Edwards." You never see me crying about it. It goes with the territory.

 

Just for the record, I post my views because I believe them and not to wind up others. You obviously took an alternative view and were prepared to debate it the other night. Then suddenly you changed your mind and these strange comments on here.

 

Now what question from The Butler didn''t I answer? I thought I had. But if you tell me I''ll put it right now.

 

To take a leaf out of Beaus''s book I reckon if you want to carry on with personal criticisms then you know my email, my facebook, and all my phone numbers. But if you want to carry on debating like you were the other night, including your buzz phrases, I''m happy to do it on here.

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

I think i will let the tumbleweed take over again.Apparently that is not a snidey remark in your book but i took it as such in the context of what you were trying to say to Purple but hey maybe i am wrong and you are right.Anyway whatever as it is about time this thread fell off the bottomof the page....any chance you could let that happen because it is entirely in your hands.?

[nutty nigel 7,513]

It would be a shame in a way, not just because of Ken Brown and Kevin Drinkell, but because some of the debate was quite interesting. Problem is, and this is not a snidey remark, most of us have already decided we''re right before the debate starts. You''re no different to me Tilly and you give out no less than me in "remarks".

 

If anyone draws you in Secret Santa I suggest hankies would be a good buy[:''(]

 

 

 

 

[The Great Drinkell 50]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[/quote]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence. I don''t understand why you  seem to take every opportunity to put the boot into the Association. I suggest you read back through this thread and see who dredged up this tired old circular argument. I think you''ll find that it wasn''t a Ncisa member.

[. 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[/quote]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence. I don''t understand why you  seem to take every opportunity to put the boot into the Association. I suggest you read back through this thread and see who dredged up this tired old circular argument. I think you''ll find that it wasn''t a Ncisa member.

[/quote]I think the word INDEPENDENT covers it Beaus....My concern would be if they didn''t criticise anybody harming the club... whoever the hell they were.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[/quote]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence. I don''t understand why you  seem to take every opportunity to put the boot into the Association. I suggest you read back through this thread and see who dredged up this tired old circular argument. I think you''ll find that it wasn''t a Ncisa member.

[/quote]

Beauseant, first of all, my posts on this forum are now extremely infrequent, so your comment that I seem to take every opportunity to "put the boot in" to the Association hardly seems fair and certainly not objective. On the contrary, I am looking for "improvement" from the leadership of the association so that I can be supportive and join. I don''t see it happening for the reasons I have stated previously. Further, my input was not referring to "past" or "present" criticism on the part of the Chairman of the Association but rather engaging in criticism of any kind on a message board. If The Butler is not engaging in it then why does he make the point of attempting to distance himelf from NCISA on Page 11 of this thread where he is blatantly critical of the majority owners. If you don''t see it then I would suggest you blinkers on. He does so, IMO, because it is clear that he still wishes to wear both hats. Of course he can do that if he wishes and, equally, I can react by suggesting that discourages me from becoming a member ( and I would suggest it discourages others also ). I sensed from your past input that the very reason that you wanted to join the NCISA committee was to help foster a more professional approach in responding to criticism. If this is an example of the manner you believe demostrates a professional way to respond to a legitimately held concern that I have then, in my view, you too fall short of the mark.  

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[/quote]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence. I don''t understand why you  seem to take every opportunity to put the boot into the Association. I suggest you read back through this thread and see who dredged up this tired old circular argument. I think you''ll find that it wasn''t a Ncisa member.

[/quote]

Beauseant, first of all, my posts on this forum are now extremely infrequent, so your comment that I seem to take every opportunity to "put the boot in" to the Association hardly seems fair and certainly not objective. On the contrary, I am looking for "improvement" from the leadership of the association so that I can be supportive and join. I don''t see it happening for the reasons I have stated previously. Further, my input was not referring to "past" or "present" criticism on the part of the Chairman of the Association but rather engaging in criticism of any kind on a message board. If The Butler is not engaging in it then why does he make the point of attempting to distance himelf from NCISA on Page 11 of this thread where he is blatantly critical of the majority owners. If you don''t see it then I would suggest you blinkers on. He does so, IMO, because it is clear that he still wishes to wear both hats. Of course he can do that if he wishes and, equally, I can react by suggesting that discourages me from becoming a member ( and I would suggest it discourages others also ). I sensed from your past input that the very reason that you wanted to join the NCISA committee was to help foster a more professional approach in responding to criticism. If this is an example of the manner you believe demostrates a professional way to respond to a legitimately held concern that I have then, in my view, you too fall short of the mark.  

[/quote]

 

Strange isn''t it, that I''ve always enjoyed a polite and mutually respectful relationship with you on this forum, yet, now,as a Ncisa committee member I "have blinkers on", am "not objective" and "fall short of the mark", yet it''s unreasonable to suggest that you have issues with Ncisa?

I''m afraid that I am not prepared to be dragged down to that level, so I will bid you goodnight.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[/quote]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence. I don''t understand why you  seem to take every opportunity to put the boot into the Association. I suggest you read back through this thread and see who dredged up this tired old circular argument. I think you''ll find that it wasn''t a Ncisa member.

[/quote]

Beauseant, first of all, my posts on this forum are now extremely infrequent, so your comment that I seem to take every opportunity to "put the boot in" to the Association hardly seems fair and certainly not objective. On the contrary, I am looking for "improvement" from the leadership of the association so that I can be supportive and join. I don''t see it happening for the reasons I have stated previously. Further, my input was not referring to "past" or "present" criticism on the part of the Chairman of the Association but rather engaging in criticism of any kind on a message board. If The Butler is not engaging in it then why does he make the point of attempting to distance himelf from NCISA on Page 11 of this thread where he is blatantly critical of the majority owners. If you don''t see it then I would suggest you blinkers on. He does so, IMO, because it is clear that he still wishes to wear both hats. Of course he can do that if he wishes and, equally, I can react by suggesting that discourages me from becoming a member ( and I would suggest it discourages others also ). I sensed from your past input that the very reason that you wanted to join the NCISA committee was to help foster a more professional approach in responding to criticism. If this is an example of the manner you believe demostrates a professional way to respond to a legitimately held concern that I have then, in my view, you too fall short of the mark.  

[/quote]

 

Strange isn''t it, that I''ve always enjoyed a polite and mutually respectful relationship with you on this forum, yet, now,as a Ncisa committee member I "have blinkers on", am "not objective" and "fall short of the mark", yet it''s unreasonable to suggest that you have issues with Ncisa?

I''m afraid that I am not prepared to be dragged down to that level, so I will bid you goodnight.

[/quote]

That''s not what''s strange Beauseant. What''s strange is the nature of your reaction to the comment I made to  the Great Drinkell, telling him that his input invoked a similar feeling in me. He may not have been influenced by exactly the same reason that I was but the net consequence of this thread turned him away from an NCISA event, which is the opposite of what you want to occur. You decided to jump in by asking why I take every opportunity to "put the boot in" to the Association. I was polite but pointed in my response by explaining to you how I arrived at my thinking, but wondered how you could question my judgement if you had read the same thing I had written by The Butler. Rather than react to the points I made you reacted by stating you won''t be dragged down to the level of my input. May I suggest that the tone of your input that preceded any comment from me left a lot more to be desired.

Let me remind you of something else Beauseant. The following was part of your input on the thread outlining your reasons for becoming an NCISA committee menber, quote: " I joined the committee because I want to see a modern businesslike organisation which engages with current and prospective members on all levels, and doesn’t overreact to perceived criticism or get drawn into petty squabbles." Following some  input from me on that particular thread you sent me a complimentary private message. Read that message again and see what you had to say and how I responded. Then read your response to me on this thread and see if your unsolicited input on this thread is consistent with the earlier thoughts you shared with me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you were just having a bad Saturday evening.

Be true to yourself Beauseant. You can''t have it both ways. A statement of your commitment to bring a fresher and more professional approach to NCISA as opposed to what you said you had witnessed in the past and then, before the ink is hardly dry, tell someone who you said you have always found to be constructive in their input that they are "putting the boot in" and operating at a low level for expressing a sincerely held belief.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="The Great Drinkell"]

I was really looking forward to meeting one of my footballing heroes and getting my new book signed (thanks Nana [:D] )but havin read this thread I think I''ll give this meeting a miss and pop down to Waterstone instead.[U]

[D]

[/quote]

IMO, that''s a smart move Drinkell. What the past and present Chairman of NCISA apparently fail to grasp ( or possibly could care less about ) is that you cannot be BOTH the key man for an association while, at the same time, engage in critical debate on message boards, including attacking owners of your club. Conducting yourself in that manner DISCOURAGES rather than ENCOURAGES others becoming a member of NCISA.  

[/quote]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence. I don''t understand why you  seem to take every opportunity to put the boot into the Association. I suggest you read back through this thread and see who dredged up this tired old circular argument. I think you''ll find that it wasn''t a Ncisa member.

[/quote]

Beauseant, first of all, my posts on this forum are now extremely infrequent, so your comment that I seem to take every opportunity to "put the boot in" to the Association hardly seems fair and certainly not objective. On the contrary, I am looking for "improvement" from the leadership of the association so that I can be supportive and join. I don''t see it happening for the reasons I have stated previously. Further, my input was not referring to "past" or "present" criticism on the part of the Chairman of the Association but rather engaging in criticism of any kind on a message board. If The Butler is not engaging in it then why does he make the point of attempting to distance himelf from NCISA on Page 11 of this thread where he is blatantly critical of the majority owners. If you don''t see it then I would suggest you blinkers on. He does so, IMO, because it is clear that he still wishes to wear both hats. Of course he can do that if he wishes and, equally, I can react by suggesting that discourages me from becoming a member ( and I would suggest it discourages others also ). I sensed from your past input that the very reason that you wanted to join the NCISA committee was to help foster a more professional approach in responding to criticism. If this is an example of the manner you believe demostrates a professional way to respond to a legitimately held concern that I have then, in my view, you too fall short of the mark.  

[/quote]

 

Strange isn''t it, that I''ve always enjoyed a polite and mutually respectful relationship with you on this forum, yet, now,as a Ncisa committee member I "have blinkers on", am "not objective" and "fall short of the mark", yet it''s unreasonable to suggest that you have issues with Ncisa?

I''m afraid that I am not prepared to be dragged down to that level, so I will bid you goodnight.

[/quote]

That''s not what''s strange Beauseant. What''s strange is the nature of your reaction to the comment I made to  the Great Drinkell, telling him that his input invoked a similar feeling in me. He may not have been influenced by exactly the same reason that I was but the net consequence of this thread turned him away from an NCISA event, which is the opposite of what you want to occur. You decided to jump in by asking why I take every opportunity to "put the boot in" to the Association. I was polite but pointed in my response by explaining to you how I arrived at my thinking, but wondered how you could question my judgement if you had read the same thing I had written by The Butler. Rather than react to the points I made you reacted by stating you won''t be dragged down to the level of my input. May I suggest that the tone of your input that preceded any comment from me left a lot more to be desired.

Let me remind you of something else Beauseant. The following was part of your input on the thread outlining your reasons for becoming an NCISA committee menber, quote: " I joined the committee because I want to see a modern businesslike organisation which engages with current and prospective members on all levels, and doesn’t overreact to perceived criticism or get drawn into petty squabbles." Following some  input from me on that particular thread you sent me a complimentary private message. Read that message again and see what you had to say and how I responded. Then read your response to me on this thread and see if your unsolicited input on this thread is consistent with the earlier thoughts you shared with me. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you were just having a bad Saturday evening.

Be true to yourself Beauseant. You can''t have it both ways. A statement of your commitment to bring a fresher and more professional approach to NCISA as opposed to what you said you had witnessed in the past and then, before the ink is hardly dry, tell someone who you said you have always found to be constructive in their input that they are "putting the boot in" and operating at a low level for expressing a sincerely held belief.

[/quote]

Good (whatever it is in your part of the world) YC

Beauseant may have retired to bed, but I have only just returned from a very long day.

It appears that I am no longer to be allowed to post on this forum, in any form, as no matter what my comments they are taken apart and the meanings distorted.

It appears that a degree of “goading” by some is a deliberate ploy that should not be responded to however wrong those statements are.

Just to clarify, I have made NO criticism of the current board or management, indeed this thread has been used by certain posters to try and drag old arguments to the fore to once again show NCISA in an exaggerated “bad light”

I am very pleased with the overall effect the changes to NCISA are having and the excellent response that is culminating in a rapidly increasing membership.

That increase is also allowing us to add to and improve the benefits being offered to members.

We cannot please all the people all the time and some will never be satisfied whatever we achieve.

NCISA needed to change and with new committee members and a new agenda that is being achieved.

This does not mean that we will not be critical of the club IF that criticism is warranted and we are asked to do so by our members.

In passing YC I will add that all the committee members are working very hard and give their time willingly and freely to what they and I believe to be for the overall benefit of the fans and the club it’s self.

I will now wish you good night as my bed also beckons.

 

[T 190]

I may be wrong but I thought you said that we have suffered years of failure under the current owners which is hardly complimentary? There was a good post on here recently about the economics of football which basically said not surprisingly that there is a very strong correlation between the finances of a club and their football league position. Financially, Norwich''s revenue from the fans and commercial activities supplemented by funding from the owners is that of a mid-table championship club. Historically, we have finished on average 12th in the second league which is on average roughly where we have been under the current owners. Therefore, on average the reality is we have performed as expected under the current owners. I would agree with Nutty that there is a difference between the owners and the day to day executive management of the football club and I not think this has changed with the current management but that the owners are ultimately responsible as they appoint the management team. I would agree we have underperformed against the average until recently since relegation from the premiership and I would agree, as the owners would that the football managers appointed by the Board with Stringers assistance between Worthington and Lambert were a failure. But to say the owners who have put millions into the club compared to a few thousand from the NCISA are a failure ignores the finances of football especially post sky, history and geography and quite frankly reality. To be fair this is not unusual as surveys show that in most case the expectations of football fans are higher than reality. Looking at the table this year is a good example, as most of the clubs in the championship can have pretensions to premiership football and there is not a hugh difference between most clubs but the reality is only 3 out of 24 can get promoted. The reality is the owners of football clubs get criticised against false expectations.

[. 0]

I really don''t know why you NCISA lads (and Kathy) bother.I''ve fought many a corner for individuals during my lifetime.... and all but a handful of those who have benefitted are happy to bite your hand as soon as they are back on their feet.Why don''t you let these clowns stew in their own juice and just enjoy your own support in your own and have an easy life?  I''ve thrown plenty of flak at you guys over time.... not because of the institution itself.... but because of the tw@ts you end up having to include and deal with.I really don''t know how you do it.... or why you do it....

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

I''m sorry Yankee but I fail to see where The Butler has criticised the owners in the present. At the time of Gunn''s reappointment they deserved criticism and got it from a much broader church than Ncisa. For Heaven''s sake, even Nutty voted in favour of the vote of no confidence.

[/quote]

 

For heavens sake nutty voted no confidence in them running the club, not owning the club. That''s the whole point I''ve been trying to make for what seems like ever and a day. However I now look back, and with hindsight due to the information that is now available I believe I was wrong. Because  for the one time Smith & Jones did run the club they probably called it right.

 

I don''t and never will criticise anybody for feeling the way they did after our relegation. The meeting at St Andrews Hall gave many people a chance to get things off their chest before the summer break. I don''t post on here to goad anyone or cause trouble for anyone. I post my opinion, which I am always happy to back up in debate. It seems Tilly was prepared to take a different point of view to mine and debate it until for some reason he suddenly decided enough was enough and reverted to criticising me personally, which I have said many times, doesn''t bother or deter me. It was Tilly who wanted to go back nearly 10 years to criticise the owners for the appointment of Doncaster and that''s crazy because nobody was criticising him when we won the Championship so emphatically. There was also no suggestion of getting Doncaster out from the Worthy Out campaigners and to my knowledge there was never an organised attempt to get Doncaster out during all the years he was CE. It is old ground I agree, but if NCISA now want a clean slate then I suggest a clean slate works both ways and not go back finding things from another decade and further to discredit the club owners.