Now We have The Militants.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

There is absolutely no doubt that the club has changed its attitude to the fans in certain ways since 2009. I wouldn''t dispute that. As I have lost nothing by it, I feel no sense of loss.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]There is absolutely no doubt that the club has changed its attitude to the fans in certain ways since 2009. I wouldn''t dispute that. As I have lost nothing by it, I feel no sense of loss.[/quote]Interesting. I have to confess that I am, and have never been a member of any sort of supporters'' group. Just a regular fan who pays his money and turns up on matchdays to support the team. And obviously I follow them in the media too.So, perhaps someone (Cambs ?) can explain in what way the club have changed their stance to the fans over the last 5 years?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Vanwink"]TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 23/01/2014 11:39 PM:

It is plainly obvious Purple and Cambridge that you know nothing whatsoever about Myra Hawtree. She has a long history of being critical towards fans and has regularly written to the press with her views including those in support of Robert Chase. My views on the Trust are of no consequence other than to say their aims will never be achieved at Norwich City. What I cannot understand is why holding the position she does within the Trust she feels the need to continue this crusade of criticising fans.

Oh and by the way Cambridge I think you will find that the Trust also has the view the Club has changed it''s stance towards fans groups since 2009.

What did she say and what are the "aims of the trust" that you refer to?[/quote]I''m not a member, but the stated aim is to have a stake and a democratic say in the way the club is run, though its holding of shares. Given the current share ownership of the club and the fact that the Trust has only a bit over 1,200 shares (out of more than 600,000) that seems for now a pipedream in practical terms.Some trusts do have control of clubs, while some at least have a supporter-director, and some trusts (such as that at Chelsea) have the latter as a long-term aim. That ambition - though not stated - may be true of the Norwich City Trust.I would be wary of predicting that neither aim will come true in the long run, since there will eventually be new ownership at Norwich City. It is not inconceivable that the change of ownership deal could involve some kind of supporter participation.

[BOO 0]

Thanks for the reply Purple. As you say, with the number of shares held by the Trust it is a bit of a "pipe dream" at the moment to expect a stake or democratic say in the running of the club. I think Swansea fans trust have 20% shares in the club! a result of their dire circumstances a while back which I do not foresee being replicated here.

The OP refers to a letter in the EDP, the content of which has clearly caused him concern, unfortunately the text of the letter has not been posted, makes it a bit difficult to discuss.

[Warren Hill 0]

I''m not sure if this is an exact copy of the letter.....

 

Dear EDP,

 

It is with regret that I feel that certain sections of the Norwich City support should be ashamed of themselves.

 

A section of the support is becoming increasingly militant and are wantonly displaying banners and chanting songs regarding the parenthood of members of the management team.

 

I haven’t been this disappointed in my fellow supporters since Til1010 rounded up a MILITANT GROUP at St Andrews Hall, it’s a pity that he no longer has his platform, for if he managed to get these MILITANTS into St Andrew’s Hall, at least we’d be able to shut the doors and keep them in there while we get on with SUPPORTING the team.

 

My Grandmother instilled in me that people with nothing nice to say should remain silent or BE SILENCED.

 

These militants should stay away, they are not proper fans.

 

Yours,

 

Mary Harewet

Vice Chair

Norwich City PROPER Supporters Trust (Hughton)

 

 

 

[lake district canary 4,533]

[quote user="Warren Hill"]

I''m not sure if this is an exact copy of the letter.....

 Dear EDP,

It is with regret that I feel that certain sections of the Norwich City support should be ashamed of themselves. A

I haven’t been this disappointed in my fellow supporters since Til1010 rounded up a MILITANT GROUP at St Andrews Hall, it’s a pity that he no longer has his platform, for if he managed to get these MILITANTS into St Andrew’s Hall, at least we’d be able to shut the doors and keep them in there while we get on with SUPPORTING the team.My Grandmother instilled in me that people with nothing nice to say should remain silent or BE SILENCED.These militants should stay away, they are not proper fans.

 

Yours,

 Mary Harewet

Vice Chair

Norwich City PROPER Supporters Trust (Hughton)

[/quote]

I know this is a spoof.  But the issue though is surely whether her letter gave her own personal views, or that of the supporters trust.   As for the complaint about the word "militant" - there are a few fans - and I am one of them who have been saying similar things about extremists or militants or whatever you want to call them.  I''m ashamed of some of our fans too.  Booing, banners, inciting protests as one or two have done.  The constant ignoring of anything positive that happens in case it upsets their "extreme" or "militant" views.    I have had several arguments with some posters on here who will not even agree that injuries have partly affected our progress this season - because they don''t want to admit that there may be mitigating factors that might deflect from their "extreme" position.   I think that is what "militant" or "extreme" means. It means people who are so far over to one side of the argument that they can''t - or won''t - move from their position, regardless of the facts or circumstances.   People use words differently.  Militant doesn''t sound so bad to me if there are some who would incite protests. There is at least one poster on here who has tried to encourage protests, so you can''t say there aren''t any at all. 

[TIL 1010 4,750]

Well now Lakey I see you have brought the word ''extremists'' into play now and then make reference to posters not deflecting from their ''extreme'' views. Oh the irony because if anybody has dug their heels in and refused to budge it is you.

Now on to you Winky and I will confess I have not had sight of the letter BUT it was read to me verbatum over the phone on the day of its publication by a former J.P, city and county Councillor and Lord Mayor so work it out for yourselves who I am talking about. 

There has also been mention of NCISA no longer being in existence and the Trust still around. The fundamental difference is NCISA suffered from falling membership as subscriptions were paid yearly. Forums with management and players became a thing of the past under the current regime coupled with no more NCFC Open Days at which we always had a presence to promote ourselves and Kathy''s Canary Challenge. However the Trust is a co-operative so if you paid them £10 in 2000 and not a penny since you are still deemed to be a member because of that status. I believe the ''membership'' stands at somewhere in the region of 700 but that is because nobody has been deemed to be no longer a member since they were formed. Had all 700 paid yearly fees of £10 their share holding would be far higher than it is currently. Simple mathematics would tell you that.

In difficult times especially pre 2009 NCISA on more than one occasion attempted to work hand in hand with the Trust but were told that they do not involve themselves in the politics of NCFC. Personally I find that a strange state of affairs from a body who wishes to put a fan on the board of directors ! Just to mention the famous St Andrews Hall meeting back in 2009 which surely was a great shop window to promote themselves to an audience of over 500 and possibly embrace new members a seat on the platform was declined. Such a stance makes me wonder how the Trust will achieve any chance of  having a say at boardroom level. Several posters on here have stated in the last couple of years whenever the Trust has been mentioned that they were unaware of it''s existence...can you wonder why ?

 

 

 

 

 

[BOO 0]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 24/01/2014 7:26 PM:

Well now Lakey I see you have brought the word ''extremists'' into play now and then make reference to posters not deflecting from their ''extreme'' views. Oh the irony because if anybody has dug their heels in and refused to budge it is you.

Now on to you Winky and I will confess I have not had sight of the letter BUT it was read to me verbatum over the phone on the day of its publication by a former J.P, city and county Councillor and Lord Mayor so work it out for yourselves who I am talking about.

There has also been mention of NCISA no longer being in existence and the Trust still around. The fundamental difference is NCISA suffered from falling membership as subscriptions were paid yearly. Forums with management and players became a thing of the past under the current regime coupled with no more NCFC Open Days at which we always had a presence to promote ourselves and Kathy''s Canary Challenge. However the Trust is a co-operative so if you paid them £10 in 2000 and not a penny since you are still deemed to be a member because of that status. I believe the ''membership'' stands at somewhere in the region of 700 but that is because nobody has been deemed to be no longer a member since they were formed. Had all 700 paid yearly fees of £10 their share holding would be far higher than it is currently. Simple mathematics would tell you that.

In difficult times especially pre 2009 NCISA on more than one occasion attempted to work hand in hand with the Trust but were told that they do not involve themselves in the politics of NCFC. Personally I find that a strange state of affairs from a body who wishes to put a fan on the board of directors ! Just to mention the famous St Andrews Hall meeting back in 2009 which surely was a great shop window to promote themselves to an audience of over 500 and possibly embrace new members a seat on the platform was declined. Such a stance makes me wonder how the Trust will achieve any chance of having a say at boardroom level. Several posters on here have stated in the last couple of years whenever the Trust has been mentioned that they were unaware of it''s existence...can you wonder why ?

So what did the letter actually say?

[nutty nigel 7,539]

God help the poor bugga who ends up being the fan on the board.....

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]God help the poor bugga who ends up being the fan on the board.....[/quote] Will that person want Hughton in or out?

[TIL 1010 4,750]

The letter was making reference to the negativity surrounding NCFC and objected to the poll run by Archant saying it help create the negativity.It stated twice that the club had frozen season ticket prices and said that Hughton had suffered because mainly of injuries to RVW and Hooper and then called for the militant section of our fans to get off his case.

 

[nutty nigel 7,539]

I reckon someone should write to the EDP with their alternative view...

 

 

[BOO 0]

If they do perhaps they could post it on here so that if anybody takes offence and starts a thread we might actually know what was said.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Vanwink"]If they do perhaps they could post it on here so that if anybody takes offence and starts a thread we might actually know what was said.[/quote]

 

Surely, not Vanwink. That would start a whole new trend as many of us are adept at taking offense without having a clue regarding why we did. Further, just in case someone thought we were discussing "taking a fence" regarding Mr. Hughton there''s loads of us parked on either side of that fence, so there''s no chance of the thief getting away with it. Not only that, there''s so many sitting on the thing it would be next to impossible to carry.

[TIL 1010 4,750]

[quote user="Vanwink"]If they do perhaps they could post it on here so that if anybody takes offence and starts a thread we might actually know what was said.[/quote]

Jesus Winky I told you what she said. If you want it word for word being the technophobe that I am I suggest you research it as it was printed in the EDP.

The point of the thread was that we have the vice chairman of the Trust calling fans militants. 

[Crafty Canary 496]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

God help the poor bugga who ends up being the fan on the board.....

 

 

[/quote]

Could be a job for the fan of the year.

[BOO 0]

I don''t know the context of what was written and if you are going to post about it don''t be surprised if people ask you that.

There were a group of "fans" there on Satuday who were desperate for us to fail so that they could unleash their abuse at Hughton, there were some sitting right behind me so I do know what I am talking about, this isn''t hear say! If they and the others there like them were described as Militants I would have no problem with that. if she is talking about the large group of fans that are not happy with Hughton and want him gone! but still support the team on a Saturday that is a completely different thing!