Holiday Inn for sale

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Oh dear me I thought you would have something constructive to say but then again my little pictures do not get deleted unlike your little spat last night on here and you have the nerve to now mention privacy.

Anyway I have some paint I want to watch dry so not going to be around today but I look forward to reading all the posts supporting you later tonight.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Obviously that was aimed at LDC not you City1st.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Oh dear me I thought you would have something constructive to say but then again my little pictures do not get deleted unlike your little spat last night on here and you have the nerve to now mention privacy.

Anyway I have some paint I want to watch dry so not going to be around today but I look forward to reading all the posts supporting you later tonight.

[/quote]

 

I think ldc is in a fantasy universe as far the hotel is concerned, and have said so. The problem is that while most posters have stuck to rubbishing his ideas he has also been attacked on a very personal level, with posts that have been either moronic or malevolent or both, and have reflected much more badly on the posters than the intended target. Who has kept his equanimity rather well under the circumstances.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

I think ldc is in a fantasy universe as far the hotel is concerned, and have said so. The problem is that while most posters have stuck to rubbishing his ideas he has also been attacked on a very personal level, with posts that have been either moronic or malevolent or both, and have reflected much more badly on the posters than the intended target. Who has kept his equanimity rather well under the circumstances.

[/quote]

Is it fantasy though?  Really?  I have tried to be as down to earth as I can within what I have learned.  Kew Green Hotels are undoubtedly a very rich hotel group, boasting several different top brands of hotel among their  collection.  That Norwich City is one of their flagships I don''t think is in question.  They also spent millions refurbishing a Holiday Inn recently in Walsall.   Described as a multi-million pound refurbishment - "Paul Johnson, CEO of Kew Green Hotels comments: “This is an exciting

time for Kew Green and I’m delighted to have David Jones, the hotel’s

General Manager, managing this project for the group. We are investing significantly in the refurbishment of the hotel, transforming it into a stylish destination, ideally

located for business and leisure travellers.”Does this not shed a little light as to how something interesting could be achieved by a rich hotel group who could be enthusiastic about having better viewing facilities at a major premiership location?    They will probably never have a better opportunity to showcase what they have by the improvement of the views over the pitch.    I can''t see the club objecting to a hotel wanting to make improvements either,  to a hotel that would have the by-product of improving the look of the stadium.  I appreciate what you say and I accept that it may be optimistic of me to think this could happen,  but its happened elsewhere and so why shouldn''t it happen at Norwich?   

[spudgfsh 0]

Seriously LDC, If something could have been done to improve the hotel it would have happened when the club added all of the other seats a couple of seasons ago. The club did everything conceivable to add stadium capacity.

The main outstanding issue would be whether the stadium licencing would be possible with the ''balconies'' and whether the police would allow home supporters that close to the away supporters.

I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Is it fantasy though?  Really?

Does this not shed a little light as to how something interesting could be achieved by a rich hotel group who could be enthusiastic about having better viewing facilities at a major premiership location? 

why shouldn''t it happen at Norwich? 

 

Questions, questions, questions. Tell me LDC, you say that you had responsibility for managing projects over the years. Did your projects seek answers or, as is the case here, did you just arbitrarily decide, without putting any steps in place, that you would leave it to others to move a project forward? How do you see this idea of yours moving forward from this point? I asked you this question many lifetimes ago, who are the others that you refer to as the ones who need to move it forward? If you believe in your idea to the extent that you push this thread towards a contribution of a hundred posts or so from you then to overcome the assertion that Purple makes ( that you are in a fantasy universe ) why don''t you put some concrete steps in place ( forgive the pun ) to move it forward from here? I don''t see any "others" doing anything with this, do you? That being the case and, if you also do nothing with it then, obviously, it begs the question, what is the point of going on and on.....and on in this thread. Is it post count, is it the number of responses you are getting that is giving you your jollies?

These are serious questions. See if you are up to presenting an answer so that all posters can understand exactly how you expect something more ( anything ) to happen from this point. I have to tell you that if you are unable or unwilling to come up with a sensible answer then most sensible posters can only conclude that Purple is correct, that you are in a fantasy universe, content to float around aimlessly in cyber space I would add.

 

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="spudgfsh"]Seriously LDC, If something could have been done to improve the hotel it would have happened when the club added all of the other seats a couple of seasons ago. The club did everything conceivable to add stadium capacity.

The main outstanding issue would be whether the stadium licencing would be possible with the ''balconies'' and whether the police would allow home supporters that close to the away supporters.

I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]exactly!Yet we have had 25 pages of  Tom Cavendishesque drivel before arriving at what was patently obvious from the start.I know nothing much is going on at the moment but this thread was always heading for "paint drying" territory.

[BOO 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Obviously that was aimed at LDC not you City1st.[/quote]

Your personal vendetta against LDC is bordering on an infatuation, you have made some well reasoned points in this debate, why do you constantly have to supplement them with personal abuse? What is your agenda ?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="spudgfsh"]Seriously LDC, If something could have been done to improve the hotel it would have happened when the club added all of the other seats a couple of seasons ago. The club did everything conceivable to add stadium capacity.

The main outstanding issue would be whether the stadium licencing would be possible with the ''balconies'' and whether the police would allow home supporters that close to the away supporters.

I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]

The club added the seats to the club.  As has been pointed out to me several times on this thread, the club only have limited influence at the hotel - and the hotel is not part of the club.   The hotel is run by a rich multi-million corporation who are not averse to splashing a bit of cash and it would be they - in their own interest - to think about the reason why the hotel is where it is and what could be improved about it.  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines. 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="spudgfsh"]Seriously LDC, If something could have been done to improve the hotel it would have happened when the club added all of the other seats a couple of seasons ago. The club did everything conceivable to add stadium capacity. The main outstanding issue would be whether the stadium licencing would be possible with the ''balconies'' and whether the police would allow home supporters that close to the away supporters. I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]


The club added the seats to the club.  As has been pointed out to me several times on this thread, the club only have limited influence at the hotel - and the hotel is not part of the club.   The hotel is run by a rich multi-million corporation who are not averse to splashing a bit of cash and it would be they - in their own interest - to think about the reason why the hotel is where it is and what could be improved about it.  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines. 



[/quote]

Agreed. So let''s leave it to them, shall we?

 

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

When we play the Eagles next season the Barclay can sing to the Palace fans......

[8] Welcome to the Hotel Carrowfornia [8]

[/quote]Part of the lyrics of which remind me of LDC''s participation in this thread : " You can check out any time you like but you can never leave. "

[morty 0]

I am actually surprised there is any posts left on this thread lol.Actually, thinking about it, the more post deletion here, the better.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Ricky"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Obviously that was aimed at LDC not you City1st.[/quote] Your personal vendetta against LDC is bordering on an infatuation, you have made some well reasoned points in this debate, why do you constantly have to supplement them with personal abuse? What is your agenda ?[/quote]

Maybe your idea of "personal abuse" is different to mine so please enlighten me where exactly have I directed any at LDC. No personal vendetta either Ricky as all I do I ask questions requiring FACTUAL answers but none are forthcoming. No agenda either by the way. Maybe you would like to say whether LDC is on to something or not with what the vast majority on here consider pie in the sky ?

Anyway back to watching paint dry.

[spudgfsh 0]

[quote user="spudgfsh"]

I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]

[quote user="lake district canary"]The club added the seats to the club.  As has been pointed out to me several times on this thread, the club only have limited influence at the hotel - and the hotel is not part of the club.   The hotel is run by a rich multi-million corporation who are not averse to splashing a bit of cash and it would be they - in their own interest - to think about the reason why the hotel is where it is and what could be improved about it.[/quote]

You talk as if the club and the hotel have had NO contact at all... ever.... that is clearly not the case.  I repeat myself, If something, feasible, economical and could pass the licencing & policing issues could have been done it would have.

[quote user="lake district canary"]  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines.  [/quote]

So a screen in front of the balconies would not block their views?  how do you work that one out????

did you ever stop to think that the football club don''t want to do anything to that corner?  The club put in the planning application for the hotel in the first place.  It''s their design and in the position that they wanted.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="spudgfsh"]

[quote user="spudgfsh"]

I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]

You talk as if the club and the hotel have had NO contact at all... ever.... that is clearly not the case.  I repeat myself, If something, feasible, economical and could pass the licencing & policing issues could have been done it would have.

[quote user="lake district canary"]  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines.  [/quote]

So a screen in front of the balconies would not block their views?  how do you work that one out????

did you ever stop to think that the football club don''t want to do anything to that corner?  The club put in the planning application for the hotel in the first place.  It''s their design and in the position that they wanted.

[/quote]

The operative words there are "four foot high"  (four foot higher than the existing edge wall.  However, I don''t think this would be necessary, anyway.  The other point is the planning application was put in eleven years ago.  We are in a different world to what we were then.  Plans can be reviewed and new plans put in. 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="spudgfsh"]

[quote user="spudgfsh"] I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]

You talk as if the club and the hotel have had NO contact at all... ever.... that is clearly not the case.  I repeat myself, If something, feasible, economical and could pass the licencing & policing issues could have been done it would have.

[quote user="lake district canary"]  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines.  [/quote]

So a screen in front of the balconies would not block their views?  how do you work that one out????

did you ever stop to think that the football club don''t want to do anything to that corner?  The club put in the planning application for the hotel in the first place.  It''s their design and in the position that they wanted.

[/quote]


The operative words there are "four foot high"  (four foot higher than the existing edge wall.  However, I don''t think this would be necessary, anyway. 

The other point is the planning application was put in eleven years ago.  We are in a different world to what we were then.  Plans can be reviewed and new plans put in. 






[/quote]

 

So, is there as plan or simply an idea. I kind of think the latter has been exhausted, don''t you?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="spudgfsh"]

[quote user="spudgfsh"] I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]

You talk as if the club and the hotel have had NO contact at all... ever.... that is clearly not the case.  I repeat myself, If something, feasible, economical and could pass the licencing & policing issues could have been done it would have.

[quote user="lake district canary"]  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines.  [/quote]

So a screen in front of the balconies would not block their views?  how do you work that one out????

did you ever stop to think that the football club don''t want to do anything to that corner?  The club put in the planning application for the hotel in the first place.  It''s their design and in the position that they wanted.

[/quote]

The operative words there are "four foot high"  (four foot higher than the existing edge wall.  However, I don''t think this would be necessary, anyway.  The other point is the planning application was put in eleven years ago.  We are in a different world to what we were then.  Plans can be reviewed and new plans put in.  [/quote]

So, is there as plan or simply an idea. I kind of think the latter has been exhausted, don''t you?

[/quote]

People keep posting to me, I will keep replying. That''s how it works on here - although quite how you''ve got the nerve to appear on this thread again after yesterday, I don''t know.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="spudgfsh"]

[quote user="spudgfsh"] I still believe that if something could have been done in that corner it would have already.[/quote]

You talk as if the club and the hotel have had NO contact at all... ever.... that is clearly not the case.  I repeat myself, If something, feasible, economical and could pass the licencing & policing issues could have been done it would have.

[quote user="lake district canary"]  The balcony/balconies  would be far enough away to not be a problem. Even if there was a problem, a simple four foot high screen built along the edge wall of the Jarold would stop that, without blocking any view lines.  [/quote]

So a screen in front of the balconies would not block their views?  how do you work that one out????

did you ever stop to think that the football club don''t want to do anything to that corner?  The club put in the planning application for the hotel in the first place.  It''s their design and in the position that they wanted.

[/quote]


The operative words there are "four foot high"  (four foot higher than the existing edge wall.  However, I don''t think this would be necessary, anyway. 

The other point is the planning application was put in eleven years ago.  We are in a different world to what we were then.  Plans can be reviewed and new plans put in. 

[/quote]

So, is there as plan or simply an idea. I kind of think the latter has been exhausted, don''t you?

[/quote]


People keep posting to me, I will keep replying. That''s how it works on here - although quite how you''ve got the nerve to appear on this thread again after yesterday, I don''t know.


[/quote]

 

Isn''t that strange, that''s exactly how I feel about you.

Now, back to the hotel, I thought we''d agreed that Kew Green Hotel Group has the responsibility to manage its hotels as well as any improvements. So, once again, are you elevating this idea of yours forward into a semblance of a plan or could advise who are the "others" who are doing so? I really am curious, which is why I asked you when you had responsibility for managing projects ( as you advised ) did they have a plan attached to them? If so, I would have thought you could apply that experience here.  

[morty 0]

So is every unknown troll now Wiz, and not $mudger anymore?

[4th floor 4]

Seeing there were several pages to this thread, I clicked in the expectation that the Carrow Road Holiday Inn was up for sale. Instead we''re going to pay millions only to knock it down or convert it into a theatre box style watching experience.Perhaps a better idea that getting rid of it entirely or converting it into a hybrid hotel/spectator faciltity would be to to divert the football budget to build a larger capacity hotel at UEA and fully convert the existing one into something similar to what the OP suggested?A hotel at UEA with its wide open spaces would be perfect given that Wayne from Birmingham in his booking.com review claimed that parking at the existing hotel was awkward.

[Mister Chops 7]

I''m not sure anyone on this messageboard can help LDC take his ideas further, but as someone who understands a bit about managing projects, I''d suggest that LDC:1. Establishes a design proposal he''s happy with re: the hotel2. Creates a business case for the proposal including costs/benefits3. Asks McNally for a meeting to walk through the proposals.  I understand McNally is quite happy to meet "genuinely" interested parties to the point of sometimes showing them contracts, so this is feasible if the business case stacks up...4. And if it does stack up, McNally may be able to use his influence on the majority shareholder to push the idea further.All we can do now is sit back and wait with bated breath and crossed fingers.LDC, may the force be with you.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="morty"]So is every unknown troll now Wiz, and not $mudger anymore?[/quote]Yes, I have to say the idea that Wiz and LDC are the same person is beyond laughable.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

A bit like the idiot that thought it up!

[crabbycanary 2]

I thought I might like to ''contribute'' to this thread after 26 pages.................

FFS!!!!!!!!!

[*** 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="morty"]So is every unknown troll now Wiz, and not $mudger anymore?
[/quote]

 

Err, appareently so it would seem, no other messageboard I know of would tolerate this kind of behaviour yet here it is tolerated by the ineffective mods.

[/quote]

Says the man who has quite openly admitted to making accounts in other names?




[/quote]

 

Wrong, because Pete knows my registrations details and my post count doesn''t change, plus Pete Raven can confirm why I had to re-register.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="morty"]So is every unknown troll now Wiz, and not $mudger anymore?[/quote]

 

Err, appareently so it would seem, no other messageboard I know of would tolerate this kind of behaviour yet here it is tolerated by the ineffective mods.

[/quote]Says the man who has quite openly admitted to making accounts in other names?

[/quote]

 

Wrong, because Pete knows my registrations details and my post count doesn''t change, plus Pete Raven can confirm why I had to re-register.

[/quote]I could be wrong but I am sure I saw you admit to it on here the other day.Oh well, you likely changed your mind.Again.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Jan van Chopsburg"]I''m not sure anyone on this messageboard can help LDC take his ideas further, but as someone who understands a bit about managing projects, I''d suggest that LDC:1. Establishes a design proposal he''s happy with re: the hotel2. Creates a business case for the proposal including costs/benefits3. Asks McNally for a meeting to walk through the proposals.  I understand McNally is quite happy to meet "genuinely" interested parties to the point of sometimes showing them contracts, so this is feasible if the business case stacks up...4. And if it does stack up, McNally may be able to use his influence on the majority shareholder to push the idea further.All we can do now is sit back and wait with bated breath and crossed fingers.LDC, may the force be with you.[/quote]

Shh!! Its already been done,  but don''t tell anyone, it will spoil the surprise.  [;)]

[*** 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"]

[quote user="morty"]So is every unknown troll now Wiz, and not $mudger anymore?
[/quote]

 

Err, appareently so it would seem, no other messageboard I know of would tolerate this kind of behaviour yet here it is tolerated by the ineffective mods.

[/quote]

Says the man who has quite openly admitted to making accounts in other names?




[/quote]

 

Wrong, because Pete knows my registrations details and my post count doesn''t change, plus Pete Raven can confirm why I had to re-register.

[/quote]

I could be wrong but I am sure I saw you admit to it on here the other day.

Oh well, you likely changed your mind.

Again.
[/quote]

 

No, you''re not wrong, when I first had to re-register I used the username ''East Cost Canary'' briefly, but my personal details all remained unchanged.

 

Again, the post count didn''t alter because it was still an authentic registration.

[morty 0]

Glad we got that cleared up lol.

[Admiral 0]

Well done wiz, thats how you fight off a troll good and proper.