Chase vs Wynn Joneses

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Doc, last time this came up you said I''d got Tangie banned? Have you changed your mind about that now? At the agm where big fat Bob announced he was legging it with Watling''s wallet there was already a campaign to get Walker back. This was before the Palace game and long before Martin Armstrong approached Smith & Jones that summer.[/quote]

PLEASE read my post Nutty, as it is written NOT your interpretation.

Just for clarification they were not involved with the club.

They were involved in a campaign to get Walker back.

Next time you see them ask them then you will know.

So stop trying to make it something it never was and never intended.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Doc, last time this came up you said I''d got Tangie banned? Have you changed your mind about that now? At the agm where big fat Bob announced he was legging it with Watling''s wallet there was already a campaign to get Walker back. This was before the Palace game and long before Martin Armstrong approached Smith & Jones that summer.[/quote]

PLEASE read my post Nutty, as it is written NOT your interpretation.

Just for clarification they were not involved with the club.

They were involved in a campaign to get Walker back.

Next time you see them ask them then you will know.

So stop trying to make it something it never was and never intended.

[/quote] I have a vague memory of the current owners garnering support from the public for their purchase of the football club off the back of them being advocates for Walker being rehired.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Here''s the thing Toe. As Shaun said after they replenished watling''s wallet they sacked Walker. Or Walker was sacked. So if Watling sold to them because they supported Walker it wasn''t long before he was disappointed.

I have no reccolection of the campaign Butler but that doesn''t mean it didnt happen. What I remember was Martin Armstrong pushing for Walker to replace Megson even though Megson had been given the dreaded vote of confidence. In the early days of Watling''s 18 months Armstrong was the biggest player and the man Watling wanted to be chairman. It was also Armstrong who offered Smith & Jones a seat on n the board for .5m? Each.

What I do have reccolection of is in my post to Crafty. Are you ready to accept that I have never spoken to Pete about anyone on here apart from Arrdee?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Well now having just got back from a taxi run to Heathrow blimey it''s a job keeping up with what''s gone on with this thread. For a start I will ignore the ramblings of our resident Doc and Chase''s Butler.

Back to the post by Bury Green and his claim about The City Stand, Barclay Stand and River End. Nutty has covered the City Stand with his video clip and my recollection is that the River End was built circa 1978 long before Chase was even on the board let alone chairman. I have previously stated that the Barclay was built courtesy of a grant from the Football Trust.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Just to get more of the flavour at the time, this from Joe Ferrari.......
[/quote]

So if I am reading this right Joe Ferrari is not a Norwich fan ?

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Bury Green"]Consider how Honest Bob''s property dealings benefitted the club, when ever he gets discussed it seems to me that many are quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Under his tenure we rebuilt the Barclay, did two corner infills, the City Stand, acquired land around the ground and of course Colney. [/quote]Firstly, whilst it looks great now, it isn''t when you reflect upon it. What did Chase do with the land at Colney? How did he get the funds to buy it?[quote user="Bury Green"]The value to the club of that basic raw ingredient in any balance sheet mustn''t be underestimated, after all there never going to be any more of it made.[/quote]The ground around the club was, and has been worthless to the club for the best part of twenty years. It eventually made money - eventually. So in trade, we lost premier league football, at a time when the silly money was starting to poor in. Whatever we made on that ground in the end, I''d put good money on being little in comparison to another couple of seasons in the premier league back then at least.[quote user="Bury Green"]Subsequently we''ve built the hotel, the Jarrold and Community infill, oh yes, the hotel. What a wonderful thing it is, perched manfully over the stadium prohibiting any possible chance of actually closing the ground in with a stand, marvellous just marvellous.[/quote]The hotel was built to bring in more money than the number of fans in that corner could raise. I''m sure the club would admit that perhaps it should have been moved out a bit further to allow seats in front in hindsight. But financially, and Purple will either rip me to shreds or corroborate this, the club has grown in terms of alternative income including that from the Hotel. As much as it is hated by fans, and yes, even I don''t like it, you do have to eat your own words "quick to throw the baby out with the bath water". It may not be clear cut but if it comes down to more money for the playing squad I think we''d all take it. We also are not the only club with such an infil.[quote user="Bury Green"]Yes Honest Bob did some deeply dubious things but I''d also counter with his property acquisitions actually helped keep the club alive or thereabouts.[/quote]Nope. I think it is very strenuous at best, to claim that the purchase of land helped keep the club alive, when it was the best part of 20 years later that the club was really able to make any sort of money back on it as an "investment" during which time much was derelict and not recieving rent. During that time, the club suffered relegation, staved off administration and even diced with being on the brink of existance. And I''ll just remind you that Chase wasn''t interviewed all that long ago and he remained adament that he never made a mistake with Norwich.Anyone that thinks his tenure was brillianly successful clearly have hibernated from 1995-2010 so far as I am concerned. His legacy on the club was deep and profound and long lasting. We had a crazy amount of debt which we had service, that alone crippled us. The South Stand needed replacing for years. Much of that time small improvements were made to scrape it through it''s regular inspections. What has this to do with Chase?Well, you have to question this as a whole. We were a successful premier league team in a brand new league which was ushering in a new era of English football, fresh from a ban on clubs partaking in European tournaments and at a time when the national side had good promise. More money was promissed and it was swelling. At this point, Chase decided to trade in, gamble, risk - whatever you want to call it, investment in the playing staff in investment in land. Chase was a builder, perhaps he was doing what he knew best, however this is not best for a football club. There is very little point in spending money from player sales on something that will not allow you to re-invest more in the near future or else you start to gamble with league positioning. Should it cost relegation, like it did in our case, you then also lose the money from the premier league.The South stand was going to need replacing, it was a ticking time bomb before it failed it''s saftey inspection to the degree it couldn''t be easily and cheaply sorted. Rather than buy all that land, a new stand could have increased capacity which would have served the club better in both the emediate and long term future.But he did none, he bought land, sold players and re-invested little back into the playing staff. Hence O''Neill leaving over him not paying out for Windass who then went on to fire Bradford into the premier league. I sometimes wonder, if we had signed him, if we had been promoted as a result, where we would be? But Chase wouldn''t have any of it and left us in a hole that has taken very careful management to work with and plot a course into the future with. Not only that, but the looming South Stand that would eventualy add to it.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Does anybody remember the only time we had an EGM called? It was not long after that when Ken Brown got the sack. Chase wasn''t just unpopular in the last 2 years of his tenure. It was as bad in the first 2 years.[/quote]

"They held a hastily convened emergency general meeting at St Andrew’s Hall, with the skinheads outside chanting “Robert Chase is a homosexual” – its proceedings rendered irrelevant in advance by the fact that Mr Chase already owned most of the voting shares. Highlight of the gathering was an impassioned speech from the floor by an elderly woman decked out in yellow and green favours. “What I want to know,” she demanded, fixing her gaze on the Chase satrapy, “is who are yer?‘ It was a good question. Nobody, eyeing Mr Chase and his line of sheepish cohorts, seemed to know the answer. Mr Chase remained impassive, like some trade union baron in the old, or perhaps not so old, Tammany Hall days, happily aware that he will get his way despite the squeakings from the gallery."

More here ........
[/quote]

Ouch ! Maybe our resident Doc and The Butler would care to enlighten us what is fact or faction in this post ?

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Fiction even. [:$]

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="Bury Green"] Subsequently we''ve built the hotel, [/quote]

No we did not. We provided the land and did not put a single penny into the project.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Does anybody remember the only time we had an EGM called? It was not long after that when Ken Brown got the sack. Chase wasn''t just unpopular in the last 2 years of his tenure. It was as bad in the first 2 years.[/quote]

"They held a hastily convened emergency general meeting at St Andrew’s Hall, with the skinheads outside chanting “Robert Chase is a homosexual” – its proceedings rendered irrelevant in advance by the fact that Mr Chase already owned most of the voting shares. Highlight of the gathering was an impassioned speech from the floor by an elderly woman decked out in yellow and green favours. “What I want to know,” she demanded, fixing her gaze on the Chase satrapy, “is who are yer?‘ It was a good question. Nobody, eyeing Mr Chase and his line of sheepish cohorts, seemed to know the answer. Mr Chase remained impassive, like some trade union baron in the old, or perhaps not so old, Tammany Hall days, happily aware that he will get his way despite the squeakings from the gallery."

More here ........
[/quote]

Ouch ! Maybe our resident Doc and The Butler would care to enlighten us what is fact or faction in this post ?

 

[/quote]

As usual no fact behind your accusation. Did you arrest people using the same ethos? "Well your honour I think he was guilty so he must be!"

I have NOT  mentioned Chase or "supported" him on this thread.

ALL I have ever said is that the BEST football times was during his tenure.

Lapp hae extracted that from a much longer piece available if you google it, written, it looks, by someone in attendence.

I can''t verify it''s veracity CAN YOU?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Just a quick point PC, Delia and Michael were leading lights in the "Bring back Walker" campaign, leading to their involvement with the Management of the club.

Chase joined the board in 1982, becoming chairman in 1985.

So was more involved in the rebuilding of the City stand than has been mentioned.

I think he decribed it as like going to the theatre with the grass as the stage!!

[/quote]

Now what was that about not mentioning Chase on this thread ? Anyway as sure as night follows day a thread like this always attracts you and your mate the rambling Doc like wasps round a jam jar.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

Just a quick point PC, Delia and Michael were leading lights in the "Bring back Walker" campaign, leading to their involvement with the Management of the club.

Chase joined the board in 1982, becoming chairman in 1985.

So was more involved in the rebuilding of the City stand than has been mentioned.

I think he decribed it as like going to the theatre with the grass as the stage!!

[/quote]

Now what was that about not mentioning Chase on this thread ? Anyway as sure as night follows day a thread like this always attracts you and your mate the rambling Doc like wasps round a jam jar.

[/quote]

That quote is SUPPORTING Chase!!

As I said evidence a bit iffy.

Do I need your permission to post?

So what are you posting for, other than to introduce a nastier element that has managed 9 pages without it.

 

 

 

[Bury Green 0]

Til,

The creation of the hotel joint venture through Kerrison Holdings required the club to in essence sell the site on a long leasehold agreement to its development partner, in exchange the club received a ground rent and share in future profits so in theory retained a beneficial pecuniary interest?

Unless I''ve misinterpreted this the decision was based around the cost of corner infills being disproportionately expensive and this was seen as the best use.

None the less in a pure property sense it was and remains deeply unimaginative and limiting for the club and could and should have been done much much better.

Chicken,

One factor that seems to have been omitted from the points you''ve raised is how Robert Chase ran into was the banking crisis of the early to mid 1990''s

Chase was and possibly still is a property boy, for the most part it''s all he knew, strategically buying land to enhance the balance sheet to facilitate further borrowings wasn''t and isn''t unique to the club or indeed many other businesses.

Where I suspect he started to unravel was as a result of tightening banking covenants and banks chose to reduce their exposure to sectors such as property, could he or should he have seen this coming?

Make no mistake this is very much the macro perspective on his businesses decision making process and doesn''t for one minute ignore some of the howlers you''ve rightly mentioned.

Seeing as it''s Friday lets kick it off with a favourite informal verb of mine, known well to our club from the late 80''s and into the 90''s namely trousering. The art of receiving or taking something for oneself; to pocket.

You mention the old South Stand, I remember well enough being rammed to the rafters on several occasions in the Stringer era when you could still pay cash on the gate and yet despite the grounds capacity the broadcast gate was eighteen thousand.

All most peculiar.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="chicken"]

The hotel was built to bring in more money than the number of fans in that corner could raise. I''m sure the club would admit that perhaps it should have been moved out a bit further to allow seats in front in hindsight. But financially, and Purple will either rip me to shreds or corroborate this, the club has grown in terms of alternative income including that from the Hotel. As much as it is hated by fans, and yes, even I don''t like it, you do have to eat your own words "quick to throw the baby out with the bath water". It may not be clear cut but if it comes down to more money for the playing squad I think we''d all take it. We also are not the only club with such an infil.[/quote]I think that is correct about alternative income, and you have to remember our financial position at the time the decision was made. Bury Green is right that the bl**dy hotel has closed off the chance of completeing the ground. But what it hasn''t done is get in the way of the kind of ground expansion Bowkett and McNally were talking about a few years ago.I have no building expertise but as I understand it corner infills are prohibitively expensive per seat (as opposed to "straight-line" stands, which are much cheaper) and that corner would only have provided an extra 1,500 or so seats. Taking us only to 28,500 rather than the 34,000 or 35,000 being envisaged. Even if the hotel wasn''t there and we were back in the Premier League I doubt we would go ahead with a permanent infill project. What we might try is some kind of temporary stand for, say, another 1,000 fans.

[capricorn1 17]

Given that it''s so expensive per seat, you would have thought they would have done something about those flood lights.

As a fan that can only occasionally get to to a game, some times the only seat available is in the corners. I don''t actually mind sitting there except for the obstructed view!

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="The Butler"]

So what are you posting for, other than to introduce a nastier element that has managed 9 pages without it.

 

[/quote]

I think we will leave that to your mate who seems to be doing a grand job all over this messageboard just lately.Your little dig about the Police of course was perfectly justifiable in your world I suppose. Maybe we should hop back a generation with regard to the constabulary when evidence was a forgotten word and summary justice was the order of the day. I am sure you follow my drift. Anyway my previous posts on this thread have been completely on topic.No need for me to attempt to rewrite history.

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

So what are you posting for, other than to introduce a nastier element that has managed 9 pages without it.

 

[/quote]

I think we will leave that to your mate who seems to be doing a grand job all over this messageboard just lately.Your little dig about the Police of course was perfectly justifiable in your world I suppose. Maybe we should hop back a generation with regard to the constabulary when evidence was a forgotten word and summary justice was the order of the day. I am sure you follow my drift. Anyway my previous posts on this thread have been completely on topic.No need for me to attempt to rewrite history.

 

[/quote]

I am not responsible for what others post, so please do not include me when you reply to them.

I also have no need to rewrite history I have posted on this thread only that which is known fact.

So why did you feel it necessary to attack me?

This board could be a much nicer place if these petty feuds stopped and we concentrated on the present don''t you think?

By the way are you seriously thinking of resurrecting NCISA? (that''s not a dig just a question)

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="The Butler"]

By the way are you seriously thinking of resurrecting NCISA? (that''s not a dig just a question)

[/quote]

That was not what I said at all. CUSDP suggested that a meeting be held and put me in the firing line. All I said was that I would be happy to advise anyone who wished to grasp the nettle with the logistics. Needless to say nobody has been in touch. It would appear that all the current ills can be solved by rants on social media sites and forums.[:D]

[Crafty Canary 495]

The Butler wrote the following post at 05/12/2014 7:11 PM:

TIL 1010 wrote:

The Butler wrote:

So what are you posting for, other than to introduce a nastier element that has managed 9 pages without it.

I think we will leave that to your mate who seems to be doing a grand job all over this messageboard just lately.Your little dig about the Police of course was perfectly justifiable in your world I suppose. Maybe we should hop back a generation with regard to the constabulary when evidence was a forgotten word and summary justice was the order of the day. I am sure you follow my drift. Anyway my previous posts on this thread have been completely on topic.No need for me to attempt to rewrite history.

I am not responsible for what others post, so please do not include me when you reply to them.

I also have no need to rewrite history I have posted on this thread only that which is known fact.

So why did you feel it necessary to attack me?

This board could be a much nicer place if these petty feuds stopped and we concentrated on the present don''t you think?

By the way are you seriously thinking of resurrecting NCISA? (that''s not a dig just a question)

If you think the bully boy will let feuds lie you are very optimistic Butler.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]If you think the bully boy....[/quote]Bully boy! Lapdog earlier. It''s got to be Tangy logging in to Crafty''s account. [:D]

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Don''t worry about our resident rambling doc as I see he has had one post deleted today on another thread. He has been handing out insults to posters for some days now in some cases to people who are not even posting on the thread he placed the insult on. It must be in the genes.

[Crafty Canary 495]

Pot, kettle, black I think applies here organ grinder. I see that your pet poodle is wingman tonight. I wonder which member of the troupe will be on duty tomorrow? Do you feed them truncheon meat?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

Lapdog......Bullyboy....now we have not had those gems used since oh I don''t know when but I remember who used them. Now come on Tangie you have had a long day travelling up to the north west and although it is only a fairly short hop across to Wigan tomorrow you must be tired. Best you get to bed.

[Dave 0]

Interesting on the debt, most of that was thanks to chases legacy thanks to what he did we almost went under.

I love the way you list bad players under current regime, there were plenty under chase, beckford, coney etc. if players were any good under chase they were sold and where did the money go, overpriced construction for the club under a company owned by which family!

But I may support a statue of chase if it doubles up as a urinal.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Sounds good to me Dave. Just as long as I don''t have to clean it....

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Dave"]Interesting on the debt, most of that was thanks to chases legacy thanks to what he did we almost went under.

I love the way you list bad players under current regime, there were plenty under chase, beckford, coney etc. if players were any good under chase they were sold and where did the money go, overpriced construction for the club under a company owned by which family!

But I may support a statue of chase if it doubles up as a urinal.[/quote]As far as having to replace the South Stand post-Chase, and that cost being a significant part of the debt we amassed, one point should be made.The directors (this is Smith and Jones and Munby and Doncaster et al) came up with three proposals - a like-for-like replacement of roughly 4,000 seats, a doubling to 8,000 and a trebling to 12,000. They settled on the middle option, and so incurred a greater cost - and thus more debt - than if they had gone for the 4,000-seater.So the blame being attributed to Chase needs to be seen in that context. But I suspect most fans would take the view (and probably did at the time) that to stick with the smallest option would have been a serious missed opportunity, and that the doubling was the correct choice.