Come and meet Kevin Drinkell and Ken Brown

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Butler, I sincerely hope you are not deliberately reacting to a point I did not make. I was not speaking about Bowkett''s input. I was clearly referring to your added comments, which I''m sure you understand, because someone pointed out the same thing to you earlier on this thread. Are you suggesting the comments you have added ( which you call tongue in cheek ) are not your comments. You make points that are critical of the majority owners of the club.

You are incorrect in your assessment of me. I was looking for a reason to become a member of NCISA and, of course, the nominal sum of money has nothing to do with the matter. I commend you and your fellow committee members for volunteering your time, however I just don''t see the association as being as effective as it might be given some of the input I see on this forum. If I lived in Norwich I would probably look for the opportunity to be more engaged and see if I could influence what I think is more effective behaviour, but I don''t. Despite that, we all have a common bond and that is the love of NCFC. For that reason I wish you well in any of your endeavours that are supportive of the club. 

 

[/quote]

Thank you for the good wishes I will accept them in the spirit they were given.

Reread what I said YC then I think you will see the point I was trying to get over.

I am sure we know how to behave Yankee, it might not be what you perceive as correct way but it''s our way and it''s working.

Now I have spent upwards of 9 hours today on NCISA matters and it is well time to say "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof"

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="The Butler"][

Nutty the comment about "standards" was relating to posting NOTHING else.

[/quote]

That''s fair enough my friend and I probably should have realised it anyway. But my posting standards aren''t that bad are they? I know I struggle to get my point across sometimes and I know that my views aren''t that popular on here. But I do usually back my comments with some sort of fact or reasoning. That''s probably why folk lose the will to live reading them.

I could just post Grant Holt is crapp, Ruddy''s sh1t, Worthy was awful and Delia treats the club like her own dolls house.

There you go, 4 points in one line and less than 20 words and only me losing the will to live.[;)]

 

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Beauseant, I understand that perhaps you are a little frustrated that a thread that you initiated for good purpose ( which I think is great ) was taken off track. However, I was not the one who took it off track. I would suggest if you wished to express frustration at what was being put on your communication thread that you might have more appropriately directed your comments to Butler''s comments regarding the majority owners rather than picking on me. However, that is no excuse for your behaviour on the nature of how you have reacted with me which, I will point out, is exactly the opposite to what you stated your intentions were on becoming an NCISA committee member.....I will quote you once again from the thread you initiated at that time: " 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." Not only did you engage in petty squabbling you initiated it when you were not required to do so, and then initiated the disrespect by accusing me of "taking every opportunity to put the boot in to the Association"  

Now you accuse me of revealing contents of a private message. I revealed no such contents and you know it. If you accuse someone of such a thing then you need to back it up. Can you? What I stated was that you had sent me a complimentary private message. I did not mention the contents. You know what you said in that message. Are you now telling me your message was not sincere? Or are your negative comments toward me showing up on this thread an accurate reflection of how you really feel ( accusations such as "revealing the contents of PM''s is acceptable behaviour", "will speak to anyone who dares to disagree with him like a recalcitrant five year old", "one who habitually hands down commandments to us lesser mortals like a latterday Yahweh" ).

You see, Beauseant, portraying yourself as two different people is like lying...once one starts to engage in such behaviour then it becomes difficult to remember what you said when. Why don''t you post what you said to me privately and let others judge who''s being sincere. Or is it possible you sent out similar messages to lots of people as a tactic rather than a sincerely held belief, as a way of letting NCISA know that you will "manage" any dissenting views that appear on this forum.

In conclusion, let me be clear. Any time I see what I regard as unfair criticism being directed toward the majority owners of NCFC on this forum I will have an opinion on it, whether that emanates from key NCISA members or not.

[/quote]

 

So now I''m a liar as well. Still, as a five year old I suppose I have time to learn acceptable behaviour.

Will you be doing that thing with the burning bush again tonight?

For the record, all my PMs are sincere . They are however called PRIVATE messages for a reason. I would be grateful if you would respect that in future rather than use them to try to score a cheap point or two. You have disappointed me Yankee, I really thought that you had a bit more class.

[/quote]

Well, I would have liked to think that too Beauseant but you have initiated two communications with me most recently. One private and one public. As you know ( but keep using innuendo to suggest otherwise ) I have respected it by not revealing the contents of that message, however, when your characterization of the value of my input on this forum is as opposite as it can get in those two communications I think I''m justified in asking you why that''s the case. Do you agree or not? Why not be honest about it? Let others see that you are not two different people. That''s how one demonstrates class Beau.....not by acting one way behind one door and a completely different way behind another door. Incidentally, for the record, I did not call you a liar. You know darn well what I said so stop the game playing and just answer the honest question I asked you.

[/quote]OK Yankee, in the spirit of conciliation  let''s sort this out.My comment about "putting the boot on" was made because, having been very critical of Ncisa in the past, I had contacted you to explain how I hoped to see the Association change and you had wished us luck. I therefore assumed that you would accept that Rome wasn''t built in a day and that it would take time. I then posted a simple announcement thread which was hijacked to go over old arguments that most people consider to have been done to death. While that was irritating, I thought that the fact that there was no official Ncisa involvement (ie the Association as opposed to individual members) meant that it was boring for most people, but generally harmless. I was therefore taken aback by the Great Drinkell''s intervention, and when you then appeared to back up his boycott I felt that you had been rather quick to write off the new regime. I probably overreacted, and certainly regret what I wrote, but hopefully this goes some way to explaining why I wrote it.Unfortunately as I started to calm down I read your response which, in my view, was patronising in the extreme and treated me like a small child. I particularly objected to being told, after a few weeks on the committee, that I was "short of the mark". My PM was sincere ( and no, it wasn''t part of some cynical programme) and I accept that your reply was, yet you seemed to return to the attack rather too quickly for my liking. Again I am prepared to accept that that may be a misinterpretation on my part, but, again, I''m trying to explain my thought process. I also took issue with your apparent demand for The Butler to leave the forum while he is Ncisa chairman, as he has every right to post on a public space. I don''t like high handedness and will always oppose it.I value you as an objective poster and as someone who can offer constructive criticism, hence my PM. That doesn''t mean that I will tolerate being spoken to like a five year old, or fail to defend my friends. Finally as for the "liar"accusation, I would suggest that "portraying yourself as two different people is like lying" is a very clever way of strongly implying something while avoiding saying it outright. That was the reason for the lack of class remark, which I will also withdraw.So, there we are. Hopefully we can put this behind us as I have no desire to make enemies, even cyber ones![;)]

[Beauseant 0]

Bumped for Yankee.

[. 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]Bumped for Yankee.[/quote]I think he''s probably busy celebrating the 10,000th year bithday of the planet Earth today along with the rest of the loony Yanks ......  [^] [<:o)]

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Beauseant"]Bumped for Yankee.[/quote]

Waaaayyyy back on page 4 you did this to me Beaus. The answer that I gave was the catalyst for what I believe you described as a snorefest. Now I don''t want to pre-empt anything, but what if Yankee''s answer is also one that you or the other protaganists on this thread don''t agree with?

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Beauseant, when I read the opening line of your note my first reaction was, "Good, he''s offering an olive branch." However, when I had finished reading your note I found myself thinking, "Why do I feel like that branch just hit me in the face?" Then when I read it again I thought, well it wasn''t so much concilliation, there was a little explanation but much more justification.

 

Look, I don''t mean to be unkind to you. I really do think it''s great that people volunteer their time to try and make a difference. I''ve done that many times in the past and I know the challenge involved. However, I did not volunteer to be on the committee for NCISA to deal with criticism etc. You did. I did not set the standard of professionalism as to the manner of how to respond to criticism. You did, because by your own words, you had cringed in the past at some of the responses from NCISA. In your first input to me on this thread you not only failed to measure up to the standard you set for yourself, you were rude in your response. Even in your latest note here you repeat that you particularly objected to being told you were short of the mark. ( Possibly it was the word "short" that bothered you [:D] ). I can understand why you felt annoyed in the heat of the moment but I certainly don''t see how you could have an objection in the cold light of day. You failed against your own standard by telling a poster who was considering joining NCISA that he "looks for every opportunity to put the boot in" when, if you''d stopped to think, you would have realised, as I told you previously,  that in recent times I''ve been on the forum very infrequently with the exception of the Free Bet thread.

Now, back to the business of the effectiveness of NCISA, which is why I made an appearance in the first instance. Remember, Beauseant, I did not join this thread until it was 12 pages in the making. Despite all the ramblings to date, I have yet to see one NCISA committee person raise on this thread why The Great Drinkell reacted as he did. If NCISA is focused on expanding its base membership then a single poster reacting in that manner should be an alarm. You refer to it by saying you were "taken aback by his intervention" and the appearance of my support for his "boycott." I don''t think it''s a boycott, and neither do I think you should be taken aback. I think Drinkell just tired of what he was seeing. Whether people tire of the baiting by past NCISA Chairman or criticism from the current Chairman or old territory being covered to a point of tediousness, you see, for me, this goes to the root problem that I have seen in the past for NCISA, i.e. the inability to understand how to function as an effective association. You see them as individual posters having their say. I see them for what they are. This thread started out as a perfectly good communication thread from an NCISA committee member offering a very interesting event. It gets off track and City Angel ( I believe ) on a couple of occasions tried to get it back on track. Several pages later you remind people of the grand night itself ( if they still have the will to live I think you said ). I''m looking for a wiser NCISA than I have seen in the past. This thread does nothing to show a new-found wisdom contributing to a more effective NCISA. Perhaps things will improve. 

Finally, I think it''s admirable that you wish to defend your friends. I also note all the other expressions of determination in your note, what you are not prepared to tolerate, what you are prepared to accept, that you don''t like high handedness. Good for you. Now understand this please. When I have a need to express myself I never have a problem with saying outright exactly what I mean. I have a long history of doing that on this forum. Of course, I will continue to do precisely that, including criticism of NCISA and its members when I feel it is called for. What I said to you previously ( and now ) is exactly what I mean.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

 

OTBC

[yellow hammer 0]

I think this thread provides evidence that the old NCISA needs to wind up. This is not a dig at NCISA but I hope it can be taken in the context in which it is intended, as constructive criticism.

NCISA was formed as a pressure group and the current executive wants to change it into something else. The problem with that is many:

NCISA wil always associated with its past history, and as this thread shows its past actions will always be dragged up every time there is a bit of discussion. NCISA''s past is a burden preventing it from moving on, and dealing with the present. We have all moved on, as fans, as a club, footballl itself has changed since the economic downturn, and the past really needs to be laid to rest.

I read one poster in a thread saying that protest groups need to be focussed on a narrow range of issues and should be short-term in nature. If not, they become largely irrelevant as time moves on and situations change. This is so true. Now that the club has addressed many of its past failings through the appointment of a new board and a focus back to the core product, the playing side, it is now an ideal opportunity for NCISA to claim success in acheiving its objectives. And since its objectives as a protest group are realised, then it should disband.

Another point is that, if at some time in the future there really is a need to protest then the ground is clear for a new group to spring up from the grass roots and provide that role. It would be totally inappropriate, and unworkable, for NCISA, to evolve into a social organisation, and then a a future point in time to change its spots and become a protest group once more. That would be like a political party breaking its maifesto promises once it got into power. It would be disrespectful to its members.

The current committee members of NCISA will probably argue that they no longer see themselves as a pressue group but intend to evolve into something else. My opinion is that there probably is a need for ''something else'', but I think it would be better coming from a completely new organisation, rather than NCISA re-inventing itself.

For example, I am sure this new organisation wishes to engage in dialogue with the Board of NCFC. I think the Board simply wouldn''t be interested in dealing with an organisation that might be seen as a dormant pressure group, waiting for something to go wrong, for NCISA to jump up and start protesting once more. This new organisation, and let''s call it Norwich City Supporters Club for example, has to be completely dissassociated from the protest group of the past, for the club to take it seriously; and for potential members to take it seriously.

The NCISA can''t be all things to all people. If you throw a bone to a two-headed dog, it will fight itself. A lot of the name-calling in this thread seems to bear this out. The new-look NCISA is barely a month old and the bickering on this thread has gone on for 15 pages and 218 replies last time I counted. It''s been viewed 3,263 times. This is a very low view-to post ratio. 15 pages of posts can sometimes attract 15,000+ views. Interestingly there is another thread called ''snakepit 1st half'' which has attracted almost as many views, but has only 43 posts. That seems to tell me that a lot is being written about NCISA on this thread, but apart from a handful of the usual suspects, nobody is interesting in reading about it.

I''m not knocking anyone personally, and I admire those who are prepared to put their free time into fan''s issues. But NCISA is the wrong vehicle for your efforts. There''s too much historical baggage that will drag NCISA away from what it wants to do. So ditch it. Wind it up and say ''job done''. And meet the needs of fans with a brand new organisation.

[. 0]

[quote user="yellow hammer"]I think this thread provides evidence that the old NCISA needs to wind up. This is not a dig at NCISA but I hope it can be taken in the context in which it is intended, as constructive criticism.

NCISA was formed as a pressure group and the current executive wants to change it into something else. The problem with that is many:

NCISA wil always associated with its past history, and as this thread shows its past actions will always be dragged up every time there is a bit of discussion. NCISA''s past is a burden preventing it from moving on, and dealing with the present. We have all moved on, as fans, as a club, footballl itself has changed since the economic downturn, and the past really needs to be laid to rest.

I read one poster in a thread saying that protest groups need to be focussed on a narrow range of issues and should be short-term in nature. If not, they become largely irrelevant as time moves on and situations change. This is so true. Now that the club has addressed many of its past failings through the appointment of a new board and a focus back to the core product, the playing side, it is now an ideal opportunity for NCISA to claim success in acheiving its objectives. And since its objectives as a protest group are realised, then it should disband.

Another point is that, if at some time in the future there really is a need to protest then the ground is clear for a new group to spring up from the grass roots and provide that role. It would be totally inappropriate, and unworkable, for NCISA, to evolve into a social organisation, and then a a future point in time to change its spots and become a protest group once more. That would be like a political party breaking its maifesto promises once it got into power. It would be disrespectful to its members.

The current committee members of NCISA will probably argue that they no longer see themselves as a pressue group but intend to evolve into something else. My opinion is that there probably is a need for ''something else'', but I think it would be better coming from a completely new organisation, rather than NCISA re-inventing itself.

For example, I am sure this new organisation wishes to engage in dialogue with the Board of NCFC. I think the Board simply wouldn''t be interested in dealing with an organisation that might be seen as a dormant pressure group, waiting for something to go wrong, for NCISA to jump up and start protesting once more. This new organisation, and let''s call it Norwich City Supporters Club for example, has to be completely dissassociated from the protest group of the past, for the club to take it seriously; and for potential members to take it seriously.

The NCISA can''t be all things to all people. If you throw a bone to a two-headed dog, it will fight itself. A lot of the name-calling in this thread seems to bear this out. The new-look NCISA is barely a month old and the bickering on this thread has gone on for 15 pages and 218 replies last time I counted. It''s been viewed 3,263 times. This is a very low view-to post ratio. 15 pages of posts can sometimes attract 15,000+ views. Interestingly there is another thread called ''snakepit 1st half'' which has attracted almost as many views, but has only 43 posts. That seems to tell me that a lot is being written about NCISA on this thread, but apart from a handful of the usual suspects, nobody is interesting in reading about it.

I''m not knocking anyone personally, and I admire those who are prepared to put their free time into fan''s issues. But NCISA is the wrong vehicle for your efforts. There''s too much historical baggage that will drag NCISA away from what it wants to do. So ditch it. Wind it up and say ''job done''. And meet the needs of fans with a brand new organisation.[/quote]A remarkably good post.... which really does get to the root of the NCISA issue.I too think it should be disolved and a revised group formed with an entirely different agenda. I suggested reviving the old Norwich City Supporters Club....... a name which has deep roots among the club''s supporters. It did a great job and the lapel badge was proudly worn by thousands. Revive that along with the spirit it engendered and the membership would balloon..... plus the local media would embrace it.I reckon Butler and the other guys by giving their time and effort deserve better... and the NCISA with all of it''s baggage is more of a mill stone than an asset. It is a great suggestion the move the group away from potential conflict and place it in the middle ground.... leaving the way clear for any short term ''protest group'' to come and go according to the scenario at the time.Top post.  10/10[*]

[ca 1]

That is a well thought out and excellent post Yellow Hammer, any thought about changing your name to match your new image NCISA ?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]That is a well thought out and excellent post Yellow Hammer, any thought about changing your name to match your new image NCISA ?[/quote]

I was not going to comment on   YH’s well thought out post as I know Robin has dealt very well with it, but as it’s you CA ....

Briefly all those who don’t believe in what we are doing would just say “it’s the rump of NCISA” “same old” etc. and they do truly represent a small minority on a small forum.

Those who do believe and trust what we are trying to do will understand and go along with us, as is already being proved.

The amount of work such a cosmetic change would create is enormous.

Therefore I would rather, at this time, we concentrated all our efforts into achieving our goals than attempt to “please” people we know will never be satisfied anyway.

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

 

OTBC

[lappinitup 629]

Googled some new emoticons have we Bly? [^o)]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Googled some new emoticons have we Bly? [^o)][/quote]

 

All the time Lapp, all the time. You see many of mine are not boring, standard bog issue like yours. [:$]

 

And I do  hope that you''re following the discussion rather than following me around? [:-*]

 

One love.

 

OTBC

 

 

[ca 1]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="cityangel"]That is a well thought out and excellent post Yellow Hammer, any thought about changing your name to match your new image NCISA ?[/quote]

I was not going to comment on   YH’s well thought out post as I know Robin has dealt very well with it, but as it’s you CA ....

Briefly all those who don’t believe in what we are doing would just say “it’s the rump of NCISA” “same old” etc. and they do truly represent a small minority on a small forum.

Those who do believe and trust what we are trying to do will understand and go along with us, as is already being proved.

The amount of work such a cosmetic change would create is enormous.

Therefore I would rather, at this time, we concentrated all our efforts into achieving our goals than attempt to “please” people we know will never be satisfied anyway.

 

[/quote]

Fair enough Butler.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

I''m really looking forward to seeing Kevin Drinkell and Ken Brown later this month.

£105,000 we paid for Kevin Drinkell, what a bargain.