SMITH & JONES - THE 15-YEAR VERDICT

[Gingerpele 0]

Just read the OP, and think its a great verdict, thanks for taking the time to write it Purple.

[Desert Fox 0]

Nutty,Your post perfectly typfies for me why this site is dying. Anyone who bothers to express an opinion that doesnt suit is a target for hounding off the site. No doubt the rest of the pack will be alerted so that can add their disapproval too.Enough said!!

[nutty nigel 7,607]

Thanks for that Des.

 

Over the years I only wish my hounding had been as vitriolic that by those that targeted me.

 

I would suggest any problems you have with me are related to my views over the years rather than any alleged hounding. I post on here on a variety of  threads with honesty and passion. I could take you on a tour of those threads but WTF because your mind is made up.

 

What I would say though is that the only time I ever see you post is to complain about people who have an opposite viewpoint to your own.

 

Without wishing to be rude I reckon you should either man up or change the fox to rat.

 

 

[Yobocop 1,105]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]

Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?

Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.

Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.
[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[. 0]

[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other.No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.

[. 0]

[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.

[Yobocop 1,105]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]

Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?

Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.

Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.
[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]

Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.

And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.




[/quote]

You called? Sorry Cluck didn''t realise we were in an English lesson, I have pointed out your grammatical and spelling areas by highlighting your post above.

Verdict? Back to school for you sunshine! Also when losing an argument on here resorts to trying to become the teacher and correcting spelling mistakes! Again quite frankly pathetic!

[Desert Fox 0]

Nutty,I didnt even mention you. All I did was express an opinion about why I think this site is dying. You took upon yourself then to criticise me for asking for some maturity on this site. Now I am rat! What next? Do you want me to get in a game of sticks and stones? Would that make you happy? For gods sake, I left the playground over thrity years ago and simply have no wish to be baited. I stand by my post - this site is going downhill fast and I think the behaviour on here by many is far too agressive for a group of people who all share the same interest. If you think that I am referring to you, that is something for you to reflect upon and I will leave it at that.

[Herman 9,820]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]

Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?

Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.

Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.
[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]

Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.

And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.




[/quote]

It''s prat,not pratt[;)]

[. 0]

[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.

[/quote]

You called? Sorry Cluck didn''t realise we were in an English lesson, I have pointed out your grammatical and spelling areas by highlighting your post above.

Verdict? Back to school for you sunshine! Also when losing an argument on here resorts to trying to become the teacher and correcting spelling mistakes! Again quite frankly pathetic!

[/quote]Eh?...... I really think you need counselling sonny.Plus you know what they say... imitation is the finest form of flattery.

[. 0]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.

[/quote]

It''s prat,not pratt[;)]

[/quote]

But you see... you, like the initially addressed moron have now used a ''swearword'' by this forum''s standards.... I haven''t. Do keep up Herman. It''s all about keeping within the ''rules''.

[Yobocop 1,105]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]

Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?

Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.

Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.
[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]

Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.

And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.




[/quote]

You called? Sorry Cluck didn''t realise we were in an English lesson, I have pointed out your grammatical and spelling areas by highlighting your post above.

Verdict? Back to school for you sunshine! Also when losing an argument on here resorts to trying to become the teacher and correcting spelling mistakes! Again quite frankly pathetic!

[/quote]

Eh?...... I really think you need counselling sonny.

Plus you know what they say... imitation is the finest form of flattery.




[/quote]

Stage 2 - completely go off in a different direction further throwing the argument into disarray!!

You going to surprise everyone and NOT go to Stage 3 cluck?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"]Plus you know what they say... imitation is the finest form of flattery.[/quote]And your latest incarnation is imitating someone (Alan Bowkett) who is happily and productively working for Delia & MWJ to take the club forwards, not backwards.Trollsville is a strange place, isn''t it?

[. 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"]Plus you know what they say... imitation is the finest form of flattery.[/quote]And your latest incarnation is imitating someone (Alan Bowkett) who is happily and productively working for Delia & MWJ to take the club forwards, not backwards.Trollsville is a strange place, isn''t it?[/quote]Jealous no-one takes any notice of you?Keep trying lightweight.

[Yobocop 1,105]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"]Plus you know what they say... imitation is the finest form of flattery.
[/quote]

And your latest incarnation is imitating someone (Alan Bowkett) who is happily and productively working for Delia & MWJ to take the club forwards, not backwards.

Trollsville is a strange place, isn''t it?

[/quote]

Jealous no-one takes any notice of you?

Keep trying lightweight.
[/quote]

Stage 3 is completed - moving onto someone else and completely ignoring the previous argument because you well and truly lost it!!!

Well done for completing the stages of a troll!!!

[Yobocop 1,105]

[quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "][quote user="Alan BowCLUCK"][quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]

Fair comments there Rivvo....I think in its current format the board is OK.

Name calling of course is childish and probably represents the mental age of many on here, you are right in so much you can put a heated and spirited discussion down without resorting to name calling.

I don''t see how a short-term ban would do anything but fuel the culprits to react even more on their return because lets face it the likes of BW, Cluck and Shyster are all attention seekers and if they''re not able to post under their current usernames will log in with different names (how many re-incarnations have we seen of BW?)

That''s the real issue of this website...

[/quote]

Name calling and accusations again?... and here''s you claiming the moral high ground?

Left to the likes of you this place would be dead.... just as it was when the forum characters were having a break in the real world.

Get over yourself for heaven''s sake.
[/quote]

I''m under no illusions if the board was left to the likes of you cluck this board would be full of hypocritical posters....the bullied getting bullied? This site would disintergrate into a spam fest in less than a few weeks....I''m certainly feeling its not me that needs to get over myself Cluck....

 

[/quote]

Dear God.... You and that other pratt deserve each other. No wonder Delia Smith conned you all so easily.

And true to the current anal mentality on here... it''s disintegrate... not disintergrate.




[/quote]

It''s prat,not pratt[;)]

[/quote]


But you see... you, like the initially addressed moron have now used a ''swearword'' by this forum''s standards.... I haven''t.

Do keep up Herman. It''s all about keeping within the ''rules''.
[/quote]

What was that about getting under skin Cluck? Looks like I''m firmly under yours and made myself very comfortable!!!!

 

I should perhaps calm this down now before Cluck starts screaming ''bully!'' like a little girl

[Barclay hero 0]

Great OP Purple and very interesting read.  The rest of the thread - like so many nowadays is a bit carcrash - you dont want to read it with the mutual name calling but you cant help yourselfI''ll openly admit - I was very much in the Chase Out camp when it was going on.  The sale of Sutton, the Inter Milan ticket fiasco, Dean Windass - theyre all mistakes that - had these happened on S&Js watch would have been slated by the usual crowd.  Likewise the successes under the current majority shareholders - 3 promotions (including 2 to the Premier League), the "finds" of Holt and Morison, and the appointment of Paul Lambert as manager -  would have been praised to the heavens had they been under Big Bobs reign.But there were good times under Robert Chase''s reign - 5th, 4th and 3rd in the old Division 1, the continued development of the youth policy that led to Bellamy, 2 FA Cup Semi Finals.  Likewise under S&J we lost the old ability to bounce back from adversity (actually this started in Chases time) and eventually crashed into League 1.  Would we have followed the same pattern under different owners - or had the two eras swapped over - or would it have been different. Pure conjecture but as mentioned elsewhere there are plenty of clubs - Sheffield Wednesday, Wimbledon - to name but 2 - who would love to have had our "failure" of one season in the lower reaches of the football league.  I just wonder if - in another 15 years - there will be a new Cluck on this or another board berating the club ownership and harking back to the era of the Stowmarket two

[Yobocop 1,105]

[quote user="Barclay hero"]Great OP Purple and very interesting read.  The rest of the thread - like so many nowadays is a bit carcrash - you dont want to read it with the mutual name calling but you cant help yourself

I''ll openly admit - I was very much in the Chase Out camp when it was going on.  The sale of Sutton, the Inter Milan ticket fiasco, Dean Windass - theyre all mistakes that - had these happened on S&Js watch would have been slated by the usual crowd.  Likewise the successes under the current majority shareholders - 3 promotions (including 2 to the Premier League), the "finds" of Holt and Morison, and the appointment of Paul Lambert as manager -  would have been praised to the heavens had they been under Big Bobs reign.

But there were good times under Robert Chase''s reign - 5th, 4th and 3rd in the old Division 1, the continued development of the youth policy that led to Bellamy, 2 FA Cup Semi Finals.  Likewise under S&J we lost the old ability to bounce back from adversity (actually this started in Chases time) and eventually crashed into League 1.  Would we have followed the same pattern under different owners - or had the two eras swapped over - or would it have been different. Pure conjecture but as mentioned elsewhere there are plenty of clubs - Sheffield Wednesday, Wimbledon - to name but 2 - who would love to have had our "failure" of one season in the lower reaches of the football league.  I just wonder if - in another 15 years - there will be a new Cluck on this or another board berating the club ownership and harking back to the era of the Stowmarket two
[/quote]

this is starting to get like the thread we had a few months ago where we had people saying ''I can''t believe this thread has x amount of pages'' when those people took up about 18 of 21 of the pages with said messages!! lmao

[nutty nigel 7,607]

 

[quote user="Desert Fox"]Nutty,

Your post perfectly typfies for me why this site is dying. Anyone who bothers to express an opinion that doesnt suit is a target for hounding off the site. No doubt the rest of the pack will be alerted so that can add their disapproval too.

Enough said!!
[/quote]

 

[quote user="Desert Fox"]Nutty,

I didnt even mention you. All I did was express an opinion about why I think this site is dying. You took upon yourself then to criticise me for asking for some maturity on this site. Now I am rat! What next? Do you want me to get in a game of sticks and stones? Would that make you happy? For gods sake, I left the playground over thrity years ago and simply have no wish to be baited. I stand by my post - this site is going downhill fast and I think the behaviour on here by many is far too agressive for a group of people who all share the same interest. If you think that I am referring to you, that is something for you to reflect upon and I will leave it at that.
[/quote]

 

Hi Dessy Baby...

 

Firstly I must apologise because I didn''t realise that first post I just quoted didn''t mention me. You must have meant that other Nutty. But in my defence I''m sure you can see how I made that mistake. It makes sense now though because Jez didn''t seem to take offence to my post. Anyway, I''m feeling quite contrite and think you should change the rat to O''Connor.

 

I left the playground 40 years ago buddy. Well not strictly true because I never used to go into the playground. In those days school playgrounds were quite scarey places to be in. They weren''t like Smith''s school playgrounds of the present time, full of teaching assistants making sure you stay warm and come to no harm. These were Watling/South/Chase school playgrounds full of bully boys where only the strong survive. I used to cower in the toilets, not these Smith indoor toilets all heated, comfy and clean. These toilets were the Watling/South/Chase toilets, open to the elements, stinking of p1ss  with green stuff growing up the walls.

 

So you see I''ve grown up to be anything but aggressive. And I don''t know who ''the rest of the pack'' are but I have always posted my opinion independently from anyone else.

 

Now I agree that there''s lots of posters left this board over the last year. But most of them used to post criticising the club. As it became apparent that the club was really going places they disappeared one by one. Some I reckon because they only used the board to complain and some because they''d set their anti-stall so far out that their position had become untenable.

 

Many posters only ever post on threads where they can complain or know best. If there''s threads about players, tactics, past players, game experiences and the like they''re never to be found. On this thread you''ve got posters who disrupt and posters who complain about them. How many of these posters have made any attempt whatsoever to take part in any discussion prompted by the opening posts. If you think that I am referring to you, that is something for you to reflect upon and I will leave it at that.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,607]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 

Now I agree that there''s lots of posters left this board over the last year. But most of them used to post criticising the club. As it became apparent that the club was really going places they disappeared one by one. Some I reckon because they only used the board to complain and some because they''d set their anti-stall so far out that their position had become untenable.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Looks like they won''t be back anytime soon Dezza[:)]

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

This is still the best Norwich board which is graced with many good posters. Otherwise why would posters like Purple hang around for so long?

[/quote]

 

Or it could just be I''m a sad bastard with too much time on my hands, nutty.[;)]

 

Some further thoughts, in part prompted by other posters'' comments. Firstly, there have been references to luck playing a part. Undoubtedly true, but no one owner has enjoyed a monopoly of good luck. In my lifetime they have all had some.

 

In the 1956 financial crisis (when we couldn''t pay a bill of £500!) it was fortunate in the extreme that a figure as as dynamic as Arthur South was Lord Mayor and so able to rally round the city, and the county, to save the club. Watling (and his successors) benefited from Boulton and Paul''s willingess in 1972 to sell us the ground. South was able to utilise a shambolic home defeat against Everton (the nadir of nadirs) to replace a failing Saunders with a manager in Bond who effectively created a West Ham-influenced footballing dynasty. Chase was almost certainly very lucky that his choice of Phil Neal to succeed Stringer was scuppered. The 7-1 home defeat (that new nadir of nadirs) that precipitated the sacking of Gunn and Lambert''s arrival was plainly a blessing for Smith and Jones.

 

Secondly, although one cannot sensibly compare regimes across different eras (certainly without making serious allowances), equally one cannot ignore the past in assessing the present. It is all a historical process. The United Kingdom didn''t wake up one morning in the nineteenth century and find it had become the world''s dominant imperial power overnight. The process had been going on since the middle ages. And it''s pretty much the same with football clubs.

 

Watling, South and Chase, whatever their faults, all made positive contributions upon which their succesors (including Smith and Jones) have built, to create the solidly-based club we have now. Whoever follows the also flawed Smith and Jones will - one hopes - do the same. 

[nutty nigel 7,607]

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

This is still the best Norwich board which is graced with many good posters. Otherwise why would posters like Purple hang around for so long?

[/quote]

 

In the 1956 financial crisis (when we couldn''t pay a bill of £500!) it was fortunate in the extreme that a figure as as dynamic as Arthur South was Lord Mayor and so able to rally round the city, and the county, to save the club.

[/quote]

 

I love that man! Didn''t he almost have it all.....

 

Here''s a treat for you Purple....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0huGBMRq1YA

 

Now was Sir Arthur lucky all this happened a few months before the Bradford fire and that we had enough insurance to replace that decrepit old stand? Or do you make your own luck? Or did the singing plasterer really leave that fire on?

 

Whatever Sir Arthur''s the star of this little show as he challenges Norwich Union to get payin'' up! And what of the health and safety as the guy starts removing the roof hardly before the fire is out.

[TIL 1010 4,789]

Fantastic footage Nutty but how nostalgic was that to see five people no longer with us in Sir Arthur,Geoffrey Watling,Nigel Pleasants,Ronnie Brooks and Russell Alison.

Any youngsters on here would do well to watch and learn about a part of our history.Can i just say that the Fire Officer Chris Tilson is not a relative.

Sir Arthurs comments about the Club insurance with Norwich Union and the speed with which plans for a new stand were being discussed surely puts to bed the pile of ashes nonsense that was being touted on here with regard to the inheritance of RTC.

[Kathy 742]

Brilliant Nutty thanks for that. Seems like only yesterday. I was one of the season ticket holders relocated. We''d have a job these days wouldnt we?! By the way I knew that fireman was too nice looking to be one of your relatives Til1010.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

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

This is still the best Norwich board which is graced with many good posters. Otherwise why would posters like Purple hang around for so long?

[/quote]

 

In the 1956 financial crisis (when we couldn''t pay a bill of £500!) it was fortunate in the extreme that a figure as as dynamic as Arthur South was Lord Mayor and so able to rally round the city, and the county, to save the club.

[/quote]

 

I love that man! Didn''t he almost have it all.....

 

Here''s a treat for you Purple....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0huGBMRq1YA

 

Now was Sir Arthur lucky all this happened a few months before the Bradford fire and that we had enough insurance to replace that decrepit old stand? Or do you make your own luck? Or did the singing plasterer really leave that fire on?

 

Whatever Sir Arthur''s the star of this little show as he challenges Norwich Union to get payin'' up! And what of the health and safety as the guy starts removing the roof hardly before the fire is out.

[/quote]

A story with a sting in the tail, nutty, as you know. Chase used supposed shortcomings in the way that rebuilding contract was awarded to engineer a coup d''etat and become chairman. Myself I have never particularly blamed Chase for that. Business is business, and South was careless enough to provide Chase with the opportunity. And South had been chairman for 13 years; perhaps it was time for a change anyway.

 

But this rather sad episode does rather cut the ground from under the argument that Chase himself was hard down by in 1996 when he quit. Even if the conspiracy theorists are right and he was the victim of some deeply Machiavellian plot he could hardly complain. That was how he''d gained power in the first place.

[nutty nigel 7,607]

And yet later Carters came back to build the Barclay, the Jarrold and the hotel.

 

Chase was never far away from controversy even in the successful times. I even attended an EGM at St Andrews Hall called by shareholders to get him out. He survived of course. Just as he survived all the protests until the last one. Out of the four of them the bare stats on google say he was the best. For me he was a lucky 4th. There''s so much more to the great history of our club than can be found on google.

 

 

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

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

This is still the best Norwich board which is graced with many good posters. Otherwise why would posters like Purple hang around for so long?

[/quote]

 

In the 1956 financial crisis (when we couldn''t pay a bill of £500!) it was fortunate in the extreme that a figure as as dynamic as Arthur South was Lord Mayor and so able to rally round the city, and the county, to save the club.

[/quote]

 

I love that man! Didn''t he almost have it all.....

 

Here''s a treat for you Purple....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0huGBMRq1YA

 

Now was Sir Arthur lucky all this happened a few months before the Bradford fire and that we had enough insurance to replace that decrepit old stand? Or do you make your own luck? Or did the singing plasterer really leave that fire on?

 

Whatever Sir Arthur''s the star of this little show as he challenges Norwich Union to get payin'' up! And what of the health and safety as the guy starts removing the roof hardly before the fire is out.

[/quote]

A story with a sting in the tail, nutty, as you know. Chase used supposed shortcomings in the way that rebuilding contract was awarded to engineer a coup d''etat and become chairman. Myself I have never particularly blamed Chase for that. Business is business, and South was careless enough to provide Chase with the opportunity. And South had been chairman for 13 years; perhaps it was time for a change anyway.

 

But this rather sad episode does rather cut the ground from under the argument that Chase himself was hard down by in 1996 when he quit. Even if the conspiracy theorists are right and he was the victim of some deeply Machiavellian plot he could hardly complain. That was how he''d gained power in the first place.

[/quote]

 

Supposed?

 

Uncertainty morphing into fact within two pararaphs?

 

Either there were shortcomings or there weren''t.

 

OTBC

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

This is still the best Norwich board which is graced with many good posters. Otherwise why would posters like Purple hang around for so long?

[/quote]

 

In the 1956 financial crisis (when we couldn''t pay a bill of £500!) it was fortunate in the extreme that a figure as as dynamic as Arthur South was Lord Mayor and so able to rally round the city, and the county, to save the club.

[/quote]

 

I love that man! Didn''t he almost have it all.....

 

Here''s a treat for you Purple....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0huGBMRq1YA

 

Now was Sir Arthur lucky all this happened a few months before the Bradford fire and that we had enough insurance to replace that decrepit old stand? Or do you make your own luck? Or did the singing plasterer really leave that fire on?

 

Whatever Sir Arthur''s the star of this little show as he challenges Norwich Union to get payin'' up! And what of the health and safety as the guy starts removing the roof hardly before the fire is out.

[/quote]

A story with a sting in the tail, nutty, as you know. Chase used supposed shortcomings in the way that rebuilding contract was awarded to engineer a coup d''etat and become chairman. Myself I have never particularly blamed Chase for that. Business is business, and South was careless enough to provide Chase with the opportunity. And South had been chairman for 13 years; perhaps it was time for a change anyway.

 

But this rather sad episode does rather cut the ground from under the argument that Chase himself was hard down by in 1996 when he quit. Even if the conspiracy theorists are right and he was the victim of some deeply Machiavellian plot he could hardly complain. That was how he''d gained power in the first place.

[/quote]

 

Supposed?

 

Uncertainty morphing into fact within two pararaphs?

 

Either there were shortcomings or there weren''t.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

Bly, dear boy, you need my course in basic Aristotelian logic. There is no contradiction there. No uncertainty morphing into fact. You are confusing the cause, the details of which were uncertain, with the result, which was a hard fact.

 

I don''t think it was ever established publicly whether South had been been guilty of anything serious in the awarding of the contract to Carters (with whom, from very dim memory, he had a family connection???) or whether it had just been a case of cutting a bureaucratic corner or two, given that the company was likely to get the job anyway, or even just action that looked dubious even if it wasn''t.

 

Hence the word "supposed". But South very much needed to be seen in such matters to be totally above board, and in this case Chase was able, at the very least to show that it looked as if things had not been handled absolutely scrupulously. There was a perception that there were shortcomings. It didn''t matter whether they were serious or trivial, or even real or imagined. And Chase, a builder himself, of course, used that to engineer the coup d''etat.

[The Butler 0]

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

This is still the best Norwich board which is graced with many good posters. Otherwise why would posters like Purple hang around for so long?

[/quote]

 

Or it could just be I''m a sad bastard with too much time on my hands, nutty.[;)]

 

Some further thoughts, in part prompted by other posters'' comments. Firstly, there have been references to luck playing a part. Undoubtedly true, but no one owner has enjoyed a monopoly of good luck. In my lifetime they have all had some.

 

In the 1956 financial crisis (when we couldn''t pay a bill of £500!) it was fortunate in the extreme that a figure as as dynamic as Arthur South was Lord Mayor and so able to rally round the city, and the county, to save the club. Watling (and his successors) benefited from Boulton and Paul''s willingess in 1972 to sell us the ground. South was able to utilise a shambolic home defeat against Everton (the nadir of nadirs) to replace a failing Saunders with a manager in Bond who effectively created a West Ham-influenced footballing dynasty. Chase was almost certainly very lucky that his choice of Phil Neal to succeed Stringer was scuppered. The 7-1 home defeat (that new nadir of nadirs) that precipitated the sacking of Gunn and Lambert''s arrival was plainly a blessing for Smith and Jones.

 

Secondly, although one cannot sensibly compare regimes across different eras (certainly without making serious allowances), equally one cannot ignore the past in assessing the present. It is all a historical process. The United Kingdom didn''t wake up one morning in the nineteenth century and find it had become the world''s dominant imperial power overnight. The process had been going on since the middle ages. And it''s pretty much the same with football clubs.

 

Watling, South and Chase, whatever their faults, all made positive contributions upon which their succesors (including Smith and Jones) have built, to create the solidly-based club we have now. Whoever follows the also flawed Smith and Jones will - one hopes - do the same. 

[/quote]

My sentiments exactly PC!

Excellent and yes I can remember my Dad giving me some change to throw into the blanket, (health and safety would love that!).

Every era has had it''s good and bad times (some worse than others) BUT all go to make the club what it is today.

AND thanks Nutty it was a reminder of a few Greats sadly no longer with us.

[TIL 1010 4,789]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I don''t think it was ever established publicly whether South had been been guilty of anything serious in the awarding of the contract to Carters (with whom, from very dim memory, he had a family connection???) [/quote]

Sir Arthur,himself a widower married the widow of Bob Carter who became Lady Mary.