Is one, old, frail woman blocking true investment in City?

[Joanna Grey 0]

Must be the close season if the geriatric, serial attention-seeker wheels out his usual misogynistic claptrap.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="City penguin"]Does it or am i being dim witted? Explain please? For you to say that we instructed Deloitte to search for investment just being a charade is just plain bull, that would not have come cheap. If the board weren''t serious they certainly would of gone with someone other than Deloitte. Think we can put you in the same basket as wiz.[/quote]

Yes you are dim witted, because nothing came of it. Deloitte was instructed to look for all kinds of possible investment.  Then what happened? Nothing came of it.  Only a fool would think they reported back with a blank sheet of paper.  The silence strongly suggests whatever the findings were, somebody within the club turned round and said ''not interested''.
[/quote]

 

In that case you are calling Alan Bowkett...

“We have approached 52 potential investors around the world - in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Far East, the United States and, of course, the UK. We have had some expressions of interest. But every time when I asked the question ‘Could you please verify you have funding?’ no one passed the test. We have searched throughout the world with the toughest advisers, but there is no one out there with real money in their pockets. I like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals and no one has shown us any.”

...a liar. Because he said the search did draw a blank. You keep asserting that Smith and Jones don''t want to sell, but never produce any evidence to back that up, and cheerfully ignore the evidence, such as Bowkett''s comments, that suggests they are not the stumbling block.

And it is a fact that since the company became a plc (around 10 years ago I think) no-one has made a formal takeover offer. No-one. Which would be the simplest way of testing whether Smith and Jones are prepared to sell. If someone tabled a well-founded and financed takeover offer that stood up to expert scrutiny Smith and Jones would find it very hard to justify turning it down. They really would, after everything they have said on the subject, about giving the club away for nothing if the right offer came along.

The fact that no-one has ever gone public in that way suggests very strongly that is because no-one has ever come up with a well-founded and financed takeover scheme.

[J 0]

I thought I''d seen you talking to this bloke, Wiz? Thought the deal was done.[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MDnge.png[/IMG]

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Ruddygore"]Whatever my opinion was last time please.[/quote]Brilliant [Y]

[TIL 1010 5,159]

[quote user="lake district canary"]

I started writing a reply to this thread, but I''ve just scrubbed it out.    Its been said so many times, by so many different people.   The running of a football club is one of the hardest things ever to take on.  DS has stuck with us through thick and thin and should be applauded for that.   There are no magic investors.   We don''t want silly money in Norwich - non-entities being paid £65000 a week.    We are what we are.   A club with a good structure, sensible business plan and a successful team.   Plans to progress at a sensible rate and debts to be paid off in two years.

 

 

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?????????????????????????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

[Y]

[The Walking Man 13]

Chelsea

Man City

Man Utd

Liverpool

Villa

Newcastle (!?)

QPR

Sunderland

West Ham

Reading

Southampton

Brimingham

Blackburn

Cardiff

Derby

Hull

Ipswich

Leeds

Leciester

Coventry

Portsmouth (numerous times)

Rangers

 

 

The above is a lengthy list of clubs that have been taken over (relatively recently). Man City and Chelsea have mega rich owners that Norwich would not be able to attract due to our current infastructure and position. West Ham, Reading, and Southampton have all been taken over by persons with an affinity or connection with the respective clubs, Gold and Sullivan West Ham fans, the Russian went to uni in Reading and Marcus Liebherr''s estate carrying out Mr Liebherr''s wishes before his death (much like Walkers trust at Blackburn from what I gather). So discounting those owners that leaves us with at least 17 other owners or investors.

Obiviously the Glazers at Man Utd are in it for investment purposes and saddled the club with huge debts to fund the takeover. Fenway sports at Liverpool have just seen their club finish 5 points above Norwich and have spent the entire season going from one PR disaster to the next. Also I feel that they are there for ''investment'' purposes also, they are most definitely not sugar daddies. Lerner at Villa appears to have gotten bored and stopped putting the moeny in now, Villa are in £100m of debt and only just avoided relegation.

Mike Ashley at Newcastle is an odd one, Newcastle have acheived success this season yet the vast majority of Geordies detest the bloke. QPR. Tony Fernandes is a West Ham fan first and foremost and was also allegedly interested in Norwich. QPR only just avoided relegation also, however Fernandes is not the money behind QPR, that is Mittal family who were pursuaded by the previous regime to get on board and buy into Britore''s ''boutique'' club vision. Sunderland (see Villa) albeit with a slightly healthier league position. And that''s the premier league investors and owners sorted (in my opinion) anybody there we like the look of? Personally i''d only take Abramovich or Abu Dhabi investment please. And even then I wonder whether the soul of Norwich would be lost...

 

Now onto the great powers that lie outside of the Premier League.

 

Would we like Craig Whyte as a potential new investor? How about Carson Yeong at Birmingham? Portsmouth have had a few owners recently perhaps they could reccommend us one!? Still at least those clubs knows who owns them I suppose, Leeds fans don''t and Ipswich fan(s) have never seen Marcus Evans.

Ahhh but what about the £100m investment that Cardiff have just got? At the cost of changing 100 years of traditions and potentially alienating supporters all to become more attractive to Malaysians?

 

The long and the short of this post is that yes there are people that are willing to buy football clubs but unless they have an emotional attachment to the club then the current state of affairs suggest that it is not likely to be any more successful than where we are now. In fact I would suggest that we would be more likely to be in a worse position 5 years down the road with any of the above mentioned owners (Chelsea and Man City apart). The grass is not always greener.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Rudeness and slander together in one short sentence.............

 

Dear oh dear, oh dear.

 

Do better than that Wiz.

 

OTBC

[Hardhouse44 287]

True investment. That would be the type that changes the colour of your kit or insists the manager fly''s half way round the world every week just to report to them because they can be bothered to come to the games.Would true investment be the type that signs player after player from abroad on ridiculous contracts who have no real empathy or connection with the fans, can''t speak a world of English and will bugger off or through a hissy fit at the first sign of trouble.Maybe you want that but I don''t. What this boils down to is your inability to get over losing Lambert. He was never going to stay for ever. Your blind faith was misplaced and quite naive. You only ever take the positive when it is the only option.investment for investments sake is not an attractive reality for me if it comes with provisos and conditions that take away the tradition and culture of our club. I would always be weary of foreigners bearing gift and that not xenophobia just observation.

[Lord Horn 0]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"]True investment. That would be the type that changes the colour of your kit or insists the manager fly''s half way round the world every week just to report to them because they can be bothered to come to the games.

Would true investment be the type that signs player after player from abroad on ridiculous contracts who have no real empathy or connection with the fans, can''t speak a world of English and will bugger off or through a hissy fit at the first sign of trouble.

Maybe you want that but I don''t. What this boils down to is your inability to get over losing Lambert. He was never going to stay for ever. Your blind faith was misplaced and quite naive. You only ever take the positive when it is the only option.

investment for investments sake is not an attractive reality for me if it comes with provisos and conditions that take away the tradition and culture of our club.

I would always be weary of foreigners bearing gift and that not xenophobia just observation.
[/quote]

 

[Y]

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"]True investment. That would be the type that changes the colour of your kit or insists the manager fly''s half way round the world every week just to report to them because they can be bothered to come to the games.Would true investment be the type that signs player after player from abroad on ridiculous contracts who have no real empathy or connection with the fans, can''t speak a world of English and will bugger off or through a hissy fit at the first sign of trouble.Maybe you want that but I don''t. What this boils down to is your inability to get over losing Lambert. He was never going to stay for ever. Your blind faith was misplaced and quite naive. You only ever take the positive when it is the only option.investment for investments sake is not an attractive reality for me if it comes with provisos and conditions that take away the tradition and culture of our club. I would always be weary of foreigners bearing gift and that not xenophobia just observation.[/quote]

Quality post that. While Wizard is banging on about the investment at Reading he would do well to remember what Gaydamak has done to Portsmouth when he signed players on equally crazy contracts. Lets see where Reading our in 4 years time before shall we Wizard?

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="City penguin"]Does it or am i being dim witted? Explain please? For you to say that we instructed Deloitte to search for investment just being a charade is just plain bull, that would not have come cheap. If the board weren''t serious they certainly would of gone with someone other than Deloitte. Think we can put you in the same basket as wiz.[/quote]Yes you are dim witted, because nothing came of it. Deloitte was instructed to look for all kinds of possible investment.  Then what happened? Nothing came of it.  Only a fool would think they reported back with a blank sheet of paper.  The silence strongly suggests whatever the findings were, somebody within the club turned round and said ''not interested''. [/quote]

 

In that case you are calling Alan Bowkett...“We have approached 52 potential investors around the world - in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Far East, the United States and, of course, the UK. We have had some expressions of interest. But every time when I asked the question ‘Could you please verify you have funding?’ no one passed the test. We have searched throughout the world with the toughest advisers, but there is no one out there with real money in their pockets. I like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals and no one has shown us any.”

...a liar. Because he said the search did draw a blank. You keep asserting that Smith and Jones don''t want to sell, but never produce any evidence to back that up, and cheerfully ignore the evidence, such as Bowkett''s comments, that suggests they are not the stumbling block.And it is a fact that since the company became a plc (around 10 years ago I think) no-one has made a formal takeover offer. No-one. Which would be the simplest way of testing whether Smith and Jones are prepared to sell. If someone tabled a well-founded and financed takeover offer that stood up to expert scrutiny Smith and Jones would find it very hard to justify turning it down. They really would, after everything they have said on the subject, about giving the club away for nothing if the right offer came along.The fact that no-one has ever gone public in that way suggests very strongly that is because no-one has ever come up with a well-founded and financed takeover scheme.

[/quote]Obviously not because they didn''t have a blank sheet. I''m not cheerfully ignoring anything. My point of view is the current owners attach too many strings to any would be investors, that possibly puts them off. The clue is in Bowkett''s ''no one passed the test''.  Yes that''s a good thing on one hand, that the owners aren''t going to let any idiot get their mitts on the club. Like that plank the EDP ran on the front page about 12years ago but I can''t remember his name.  However decent ones are just plainly put off the idea.

[First Wizard 0]

Ignoring the usual Delia defenders brigade, I note that many posters get confused in the ''investment'' tag. Thats probably my mistake using that word in the thread title, upon reflection it should read ownership.

 

Delia does no doubt does court investment, as long as she retains overall control of her toy ie. our club.

 

But letting new owners take over?......... not a cat in hells chance!

 

No wonder new investors can''t be found (err, so just what purpose does Mr Fry serve then? ) if their future ownership aspirations are blocked from the very start.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Wiz, why don''t you do the sensible thing and just let this go? After 5 plus pages of this thread, it seems that you are in a minority of one on this bandwaggon. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and it may have some merit, but it''s clear that no-one else shares it.

 

There may well be a vehicle where you could find a group of folk who broadly sympathise with your views, but the Pink Un forum surely is not it ?

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Wiz"]

Ignoring the usual Delia defenders brigade, I note that many posters get confused in the ''investment'' tag. Thats probably my mistake using that word in the thread title, upon reflection it should read ownership.

 

Delia does no doubt does court investment, as long as she retains overall control of her toy ie. our club.

 

But letting new owners take over?......... not a cat in hells chance!

 

No wonder new investors can''t be found (err, so just what purpose does Mr Fry serve then? ) if their future ownership aspirations are blocked from the very start.

[/quote]Nothing.  I guess he was brought in to raise the club''s profile in some weird way. But I think being in the EPL has trumped that.

[Ruddygore 0]

Please take this post as standing for whatever point I made previously when such similar thread reached such similar point in our ever seemingly similar history on this forum.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]For arguments sake Wiz, if an arms dealer did want to "invest" tens of millions of pounds into the club, would you take him, trade and all, on board and welcome him, regardless of the way he has made his fortune?[/quote]

 

Yes, in this league Shuck you can''t afford to have morals and principles.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="J"]I thought I''d seen you talking to this bloke, Wiz? Thought the deal was done.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/MDnge.png[/IMG]
[/quote]

 

Brilliant J.  [Y]

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]For arguments sake Wiz, if an arms dealer did want to "invest" tens of millions of pounds into the club, would you take him, trade and all, on board and welcome him, regardless of the way he has made his fortune?[/quote]If arms dealers become US presidents it''s good enough for us.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="City penguin"]Does it or am i being dim witted? Explain please? For you to say that we instructed Deloitte to search for investment just being a charade is just plain bull, that would not have come cheap. If the board weren''t serious they certainly would of gone with someone other than Deloitte. Think we can put you in the same basket as wiz.[/quote]

Yes you are dim witted, because nothing came of it. Deloitte was instructed to look for all kinds of possible investment.  Then what happened? Nothing came of it.  Only a fool would think they reported back with a blank sheet of paper.  The silence strongly suggests whatever the findings were, somebody within the club turned round and said ''not interested''.
[/quote]

 

In that case you are calling Alan Bowkett...

“We have approached 52 potential investors around the world - in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Far East, the United States and, of course, the UK. We have had some expressions of interest. But every time when I asked the question ‘Could you please verify you have funding?’ no one passed the test. We have searched throughout the world with the toughest advisers, but there is no one out there with real money in their pockets. I like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals and no one has shown us any.”

...a liar. Because he said the search did draw a blank. You keep asserting that Smith and Jones don''t want to sell, but never produce any evidence to back that up, and cheerfully ignore the evidence, such as Bowkett''s comments, that suggests they are not the stumbling block.

And it is a fact that since the company became a plc (around 10 years ago I think) no-one has made a formal takeover offer. No-one. Which would be the simplest way of testing whether Smith and Jones are prepared to sell. If someone tabled a well-founded and financed takeover offer that stood up to expert scrutiny Smith and Jones would find it very hard to justify turning it down. They really would, after everything they have said on the subject, about giving the club away for nothing if the right offer came along.

The fact that no-one has ever gone public in that way suggests very strongly that is because no-one has ever come up with a well-founded and financed takeover scheme.

[/quote]

Obviously not because they didn''t have a blank sheet. I''m not cheerfully ignoring anything. My point of view is the current owners attach too many strings to any would be investors, that possibly puts them off. The clue is in Bowkett''s ''no one passed the test''. 
Yes that''s a good thing on one hand, that the owners aren''t going to let any idiot get their mitts on the club. Like that plank the EDP ran on the front page about 12years ago but I can''t remember his name.  However decent ones are just plainly put off the idea.
[/quote]

 

I''m afraid that is nonsense. You are right that the clue is in Bowkett''s words, but not in the way you assert. The string that is being attached, as Bowkett makes clear, is the absolutely necessary one that would-be owners have to prove they actually have the money. And if you read what Bowkett says it is plain he entirely agrees with people having to pass this test. Indeed, it seems as much his test as Smith and Jones''s:

"But every time when I asked the question..."

"I like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals..."

"I asked..." "I like..."

That is Bowkett, the hard-headed businessman, saying this, not Smith and Jones.

[starfish 0]

As a Scottish born, Scottish based supporter, can I just draw your attention to what is happening at Rangers as a result of dodgy owners over the last 25 years. Under Sir David Murray - who apparently had loadsa money but didn''t really - it''s been spectacular crash and burn without ever really having the impact on the European stage that his ego craved, followed by a panic sale to asset stripper Craig Whyte, followed by a further panic sale of the remaining assets to one Charles Green (ex Sheff Utd, but just a front man for who knows what shady characters). It''s all ended in tears and 50,000 bears may not have any sort of team to follow follow next season in any league. There''s still loads more to come out on this story, but it''s made me grateful for the stability and relative transparency at Norwich.

On the upside it''s been hilarious to watch Donkeycaster becomingh even more out of his depth and inept than he was at Carra Rd, in his current (but maybe not for much longer) role as CEO of the Scottish Premier League.

Someotimes it better the devil you know - the motives of anybody taking over a football club are not always clear, and not always aligned with what we fans would like or presume.

Be careful what you wish for!

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"][quote user="Old Shuck"]For arguments sake Wiz, if an arms dealer did want to "invest" tens of millions of pounds into the club, would you take him, trade and all, on board and welcome him, regardless of the way he has made his fortune?[/quote]

If arms dealers become US presidents it''s good enough for us.
[/quote]

 

Huzzah! [Y]

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,411]

I get so confused.

 

What is it fans want? A sustainable football club that can ride the waves of football financing or one which is funded on the whim of a rich owner.

 

Do people really want Norwich to have a Randy Learner? A Gaydamak? The Venkys? A Marcus Evans? Because more often than not that is what you get with selling the club to the first person to come along with a pot of gold.

 

The only real investors/oweners I would consider being a success for the clubs are people like - Al Fayed, David Whelan, Abramovich and Al Mansour. Out of those 4 you have Whelan who would only ever have considered investing in Wigan, Abramovich who chose Chelsea becuase they made the Champions League when he was looking for a club (and their West London base), Al Mansour was looking at something on a much larger scale than Norwich. The only one left is Al Fayed, who I wouldn''t mind at the club, but be prepared for a bloody stupid statue and the lap of honour he takes before games.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Like BYG, I''m all confused as well. Am I just being thick here, or is not the normal method of investment favoured by entrepreneurs to get in when things are not going so well( so the price is cheap), then work your magic, make the business a success, and, if necessary, get the hell out, taking your money with you at a healthy profit ?

 

So, if we look at the "things not going so well" bit of that idea, I''d say it''s fair to say that we''ve had no shortage of that phenomenon at NCFC Towers during the 05 to 10 period . So, if there were going to be nimble investors looking for a nice little earner, would that not have been the time for them to beat a path to Carrow Rd ? There were names mentioned, but funnily enough, nothing ever materialised. And that even applied to the kind of shady operators highlighted by BYG in his very reasoned comment. Suggestions that Delia would not have sold had the right offer come in are, frankly, fantasy.

 

So, if a large number of fans even wanted a new Arab/ American/ Russian owner, it would appear they were thin on the ground to say the least. So, let''s just live in the real world, shall we ?

[Old Shuck 280]

People would seriously welcome someone who made his/her fabulous wealth by selling arms to all and sundry-you know, landmines, explosive material, missile systems, technology that can knock out electrical or telecommunication equipment over a wide area prior to a physical attack of some kind-said weapons coming via same person-as a ''saviour'' here, a sugar daddy, someone who''d be welcomed and cheered to the girders as they stood smiling, bloodied hands aloft, in the Directors Box?

 

Wiz, if morals don''t apply somewhere way down the list of lifes priorities, then they can''t, by definition, feature any further up in said personal list either. But I will assume your comment was made tongue in cheek and you would find the above scenario as abhorrent as I would.

 

Nest thing we know is that we''ll have QinetiQ on our shirts!

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Pink un Role Model"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"][quote user="City penguin"]Does it or am i being dim witted? Explain please? For you to say that we instructed Deloitte to search for investment just being a charade is just plain bull, that would not have come cheap. If the board weren''t serious they certainly would of gone with someone other than Deloitte. Think we can put you in the same basket as wiz.[/quote]Yes you are dim witted, because nothing came of it. Deloitte was instructed to look for all kinds of possible investment.  Then what happened? Nothing came of it.  Only a fool would think they reported back with a blank sheet of paper.  The silence strongly suggests whatever the findings were, somebody within the club turned round and said ''not interested''. [/quote]

 

In that case you are calling Alan Bowkett...“We have approached 52 potential investors around the world - in Europe, Russia, the Middle East, the Far East, the United States and, of course, the UK. We have had some expressions of interest. But every time when I asked the question ‘Could you please verify you have funding?’ no one passed the test. We have searched throughout the world with the toughest advisers, but there is no one out there with real money in their pockets. I like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals and no one has shown us any.”

...a liar. Because he said the search did draw a blank. You keep asserting that Smith and Jones don''t want to sell, but never produce any evidence to back that up, and cheerfully ignore the evidence, such as Bowkett''s comments, that suggests they are not the stumbling block.And it is a fact that since the company became a plc (around 10 years ago I think) no-one has made a formal takeover offer. No-one. Which would be the simplest way of testing whether Smith and Jones are prepared to sell. If someone tabled a well-founded and financed takeover offer that stood up to expert scrutiny Smith and Jones would find it very hard to justify turning it down. They really would, after everything they have said on the subject, about giving the club away for nothing if the right offer came along.The fact that no-one has ever gone public in that way suggests very strongly that is because no-one has ever come up with a well-founded and financed takeover scheme.

[/quote]Obviously not because they didn''t have a blank sheet. I''m not cheerfully ignoring anything. My point of view is the current owners attach too many strings to any would be investors, that possibly puts them off. The clue is in Bowkett''s ''no one passed the test''.  Yes that''s a good thing on one hand, that the owners aren''t going to let any idiot get their mitts on the club. Like that plank the EDP ran on the front page about 12years ago but I can''t remember his name.  However decent ones are just plainly put off the idea.[/quote]

 

I''m afraid that is nonsense. You are right that the clue is in Bowkett''s words, but not in the way you assert. The string that is being attached, as Bowkett makes clear, is the absolutely necessary one that would-be owners have to prove they actually have the money. And if you read what Bowkett says it is plain he entirely agrees with people having to pass this test. Indeed, it seems as much his test as Smith and Jones''s:"But every time when I asked the question...""I like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals...""I asked..." "I like..."That is Bowkett, the hard-headed businessman, saying this, not Smith and Jones.

[/quote]Fine, that''s how you read it.  That''s my opinion on it.  It''s not a matter of just coming up with the cash.  It''s a matter of whether they fit Delia''s own criteria.  She said herself (I can''t remember verbatim) that the right person can have the club for practically nothing.For the sake of dragging it out, it''s been 100s of times on here.  I won''t say no more.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

[quote user="The Pink un Role Model"]


Fine, that''s how you read it.  That''s my opinion on it.  It''s not a matter of just coming up with the cash.  It''s a matter of whether they fit Delia''s own criteria.  She said herself (I can''t remember verbatim) that the right person can have the club for practically nothing.
For the sake of dragging it out, it''s been 100s of times on here.  I won''t say no more.
[/quote]

I agree with that in red. Absolutely. It is not just a matter of cash for Smith and Jones. The new owners have to understand the club and its history as well. The difference between us is that you believe some of the strings they are attaching are deliberately impossible to meet. I don''t think there is any evidence at all that is true. But let''s leave it there.

Just going back a post or two, you mentioned a would-be owner from 12 years or so ago. I think you mean Giovanni di Stefano, the lawyer with the interesting client list. Whom The Guardian described as "Surely the only man in the world to claim the personal friendship of Saddam Hussein and the personal enmity of Delia Smith."

[Old Shuck 280]

Of course people have to "pass the test". Standard procedure in anything financial-are we suggesting that, if someone comes along and says they wish to put large amounts of money into the club, said club should just say, "...gosh, thanks very much", release the story to the press,clear their desks and eagerly await the new incoming regime of milk and honey?

 

Spencer Trethewy did just that with Aldershot some years ago, they welcomed him onboard, took the money and eagerly awaited the realisation of his promises...except he didn''t have any more money. Had Aldershot done a fit and proper persons test they would have realised that and it would never have happened, they were duped by a 19 year old who wasn''t as rich as he-or they-thought he was and the story made all concerned a laughing stock.

 

And its being suggested that Bowkett shouldn''t expect would be investors or whatever to "pass the test".

 

Mind you, try getting a mortgage or bank loan by just saying "...oh don''t worry, no need to check. I''ll be able to pay it back, honest".

[norfolkchance1 0]

Read the first post on this page and see how some people on this messageboard are viewed by other clubs fans.

http://test.villatalk.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=2996183

Also note the poster with 93 posts whose stirring.

http://www.villatalk.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=3000350

Managing to stir on two messageboards simultaneously and irritate in equal measure, how sad.

We are getting badged in the same way as the Colchester fans were on here when Lambert left them for us.

As for this thread or the point of it, there isn''t any, just previously spouted nonsense about a well meaning successful woman. I''ve heard this thread topic before and I actually glaze over when reading it and just accept it as minority nonsense.

[Trawlerboy 0]

Best we get used to a number of years in League 1, or worse then when Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones grow too old for the job. It looks like we will be ran by Foulger then as he appears to be the next richest guy currently willing to invest in NCFC shares. Perhaps our majority shareholders current shares will be distributed equally amongst the rest of our current shareholders as nobody is willing to buy them?We best hope that an NCFC wins big on the Euromillions, because quite frankly what a frightening thought that is.That''s my thoughts and I''m out, as you get more of a two way conversation talking to a brick wall on this subject!

[Trawlerboy 0]

edit; that should have, "we best hope that an NCFC fan wins big on the Euromillions"