Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 13/04/19 in all areas

  1. 6 points
    The game was 90 minutes plus. You seem to be judging it on two instances within that 90. Generally you dominate a game like that then you win. Unless you're hopelessly unlucky. Did you watch the game? Ignoring the possession dominance and shots on target comparison, the fact that we were denied two penalties, one absolutely blatant and the other pretty clearcut, is enough to suggest a chunk of misfortune. I know you could argue with a fence panel, but surely you're not going to deny that?
  2. 5 points
    I believe he can get a tablet to help him with that.
  3. 3 points
    I am speaking as someone with 30 years experience in company taxation. Evans and his companies do not gain a financial advantage as a result of Ipswich Town making losses. At best his companies get relief at 20% for the losses which means that a loss of £5m becomes a loss of £4m after tax relief. Evans bought a debt of £30m owed by Ipswich to Aviva. He bought the debt for £7m which meant Aviva lost £23m. The Ipswich shareholders and supporters thought this meant they now only owed £7m when in fact they still owed £30m but to Evans rather than Aviva. It seems that Evans plan was to get promoted and take the £30m out of the Sky money thus making a quick profit of £23m. Unfortunately he chose Roy Keane to put this plan into practice and we all know what happened next. The debt is now £100m, mainly because Evans has been rolling up unpaid interest on the debt but also because wages have exceeded income. He stopped charging interest a couple of years ago which may be the result of FFP or perhaps because HMRC disallowed the losses. Only Evans and HMRC will know the reason. The rules for cross company interest relief and losses are incredibly complex. The moral of the tale is not to allow a gun running ticket tout to buy your football club.
  4. 3 points
    Yes, but as I've posted before they seem to have managed to turn promotion to the PL into a negative thing (losing games, being relegated etc.) and relegation to the third tier into a positive thing (winning games, promotion etc.) Total false logic, but entirely to be expected from the supporters of that hopeless, hapless, debt-ridden apology for a football club, and they are welcome to it all. OTBC
  5. 3 points
    Play emi as it will be a six pointer for top spot, we'll have enough quality to see off the likes of palace and Newcastle without him
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
    I've got a speech ready which I will deliver to the ipswich forum 1-2 days following.
  8. 2 points
    If nothing else this proves we don't have anything to worry about https://totalfootballanalysis.com/match-analysis/norwich-city-reading-efl-championship-tactical-analysis I only saw the last 20 mins. or so but it did seem we were throwing speculative crosses in at an alarming rate (result of Jordan coming on?) Also leaving huge gaps in MF during extra time. And Marco's leg waving 'tackle' just before the goal ... grrr. That's showbiz folks. We go again.
  9. 2 points
    Agreed, non story, he's the Manager of a Team, any Team, he gets paid to get results. He doesn't care about Norwich, Sheffield Utd or Leeds. He'll be going for it in every game.
  10. 2 points
    What a result! Thanks every one on here who contributed. I had an amazing day too.
  11. 2 points
    I cannot see any Manager asking his team to lose so that the team from the same City doesn't go up. And at the same time deny his supporters a win.
  12. 1 point
    Just to add a little bit of irony, Birmingham are playing in yellow
  13. 1 point
    Company A makes a profit of £10m. Company B makes a loss of £4m. The companies are under common ownership. In total they have made a profit of £6m. Company A would normally pay Corporation Tax at 20% on its profit of £10m giving a tax bill of £2m. Company A claims group losses of £4m from Company B which reduces its taxable profits to £6m. Corporation tax at 20% is £1.2m, a reduction of £800k. Company A has saved £800k in tax but Company B has still lost £4m. The only benefit to losing £4m is a tax saving of £800k. As another poster has said, there cannot be a tax advantage in a company losing money unless of course the loss is contrived in some way. That hasn't happened here, the Ipswich losses in the last year arose from the fact that their wage bill was greater than their income. God knows how but rumour has it that Lambert is keen on signing Naismith in the summer. Any further queries will be answered but there will be a charge of £500 an hour payable to Dylan Ltd which is a loss making company based in Jersey......
  14. 1 point
    I will be following also Lakey. I think we will be as we were tomorrow but with one more game. Easter weekend is going to settle this equation. I know we can do it, I am sure we can do it. I'm ready to back the boys to close the deal.
  15. 1 point
    Do some people actually really believe Sheff Weds will give up their chance of making the Play Offs just so Sheff Utd can’t get promoted?! These are professional footballers going for their own personal success and money, not fanboys with Sheff Weds duvet covers
  16. 1 point
    If no-one's prepared to buy Evans out there's not a lot they can do to be fair.
  17. 1 point
    Hmmm, I don’t think I have missed the point. I agree that you can’t look at the stats and know for sure that it was a home win. But surely around 80% of the time it would be a home win- and when you also factor in the nature of the chances on both sides I would push this out to 90-95% of the time. On another day Pukki would’ve bagged a hatrick. We had at least 4 exceptional chances that didn’t go in (inc. Rhodes’ header) and that’s not even mentioning Trybull hitting the post! So what’s your point? Yes, you can look at those stats and say that it COULD have been a home win, away win or draw, but can’t you do this for every game? Why are you trying to throw stats up in the air after appearing so heavily reliant on them earlier in the season? Surely you agree there is still a more likely outcome - similar to your XG stats (which is something I really like). You have to play your percentages and given the above there is little I can criticise the team for on Wednesday’s game, two sucker punches out of a measly three chances we reduced them to across the entire game. If we were playing poker we would’ve had them all in and crushed with 1 card to come, unfortunately for us they hit their 1 in 20 card on the river. You described this as ‘woeful defending’ in your other post, I have to disagree, we were massively unfortunate that Reading managed to hit their fleeting moments perfectly. Just to remind you of your own words; ‘’Sorry Crabby but you are wrong. Anybody who actually understood stats would know perfectly well that they were totally consistent with the game ending as it did, or any other result equally.’’ Ignoring the extremely patronising caveats of ‘you are wrong’ and ‘anybody who actually understood stats’, I will ask what about the stats is ‘totally consistent’ with the game ending as it did? You are not simply suggesting that any outcome is possible (which is a completely fair conclusion to make), you are claiming that any outcome is equally likely. Surely your own statty mind is short circuiting at this notion? When you factor in the patronising opening sentences it’s all starting to sound a bit twatty (no offence). I just don’t understand where your watered down viewpoint has come from. Has your partner had an affair with stats? Did you lend stats money and they not pay you back? What happened westcoast!? Also RE our league position, you never suggested false exactly, however you did indicate pretty confidently that you felt we would finish 4th.. Although, I respect that because our XG to GF ratio has improved your opinion on this must’ve also changed - which is fair enough. I take that back.
  18. 1 point
    Neil and Maddison had a big falling out. When Maddison arrived at Norwich he had a big ego and felt he should go straight into the first team. Neil felt Maddison needed to earn his place. Wes, Pritchard and Naismith were all ahead of Maddison. Words were exchanged and Neil gave Maddison a very public dressing down in training, telling him he needed to ‘grow up’. The loan move to Aberdeen had been arranged but Maddison originally refused to go. But was eventually convinced it was best. Come January Maddison refused to extend his loan, against Neil’s wishes and advice and came back to Norwich. Neil said that Maddison wouldn’t be part of the first team. Maddison said he wanted first team football. An impasse was reached. Had Neil stayed I’m sure Maddison would have pushed for a move away and I doubt Neil would refuse. As we know, Neil got sacked, Alan Irvine gave Maddison a game and the rest is history. Norwich seemingly ran a very disjointed transfer strategy when Neil was around. Ricky Martin and his team would sign young players with no real idea how and when they’d get in the team. Neil ran a totally separate transfer strategy buying players he liked for the team immediately. Webber pointed this out very early on in his Norwich career. I’ve heard the same story from a couple of different people so believe it to be true. Some of the details may be embellishments, but the general story seems to fit in with what came out in public at the time. I don’t place all the blame on Neil for this, I think most managers would have treat Maddison the same. What is the issue though is Neil buying Pritchard when he really wasn’t needed - it is just poor squad and budget management. If Norwich had used the £10m spend on Pritchard on two defenders Norwich may have bounced straight back up.
  19. 1 point
    It's not the biggest crime in the world and quite benign in the grand scheme of things, but there's a time and a place. It won't break bones but we don't live in the Dark Ages after all, although it seems that with some Anglo-Saxon is the only second language they are capable of. Swear words are crude and allude to the sexual act and bodily functions in the most basic way so there is therefore something unpleasant about them at their core. Thus swearing aloud in a public place illustrates a lack of class and surely demonstrates a lack of self-respect as well as disrespect for others. Most of us swear but then most of us swear only when appropriate. I can with the best of them, especially on the golf course, but would never use foul language in mixed or unfamiliar company or in front of my mother quaintly enough, saving it for when alone or with friends of the same ilk. If a ladies foursome is following us up then we all automatically behave like perfect gentlemen, despite the crudest slice or missed short put. We never swear, we leave that to the ladies behind us. The golfer John Rahm let out the 'F' word last night in the Masters when his tee shot went array. It was loud enough to be heard by the television audience so must have resonated with the very mixed crowd around the teeing area. If there is any sporting event in the world were decorum is needed it is this one, where standards (some disagreeable) are set high and perfection is sought in everything they do. I wonder if anything will come of it , he's somewhat of a 'role model' after all, and the fact that the commentator saw fit to apologise demonstrates surely that Rahm's actions were beyond the acceptable. It does seem strange, in this politically correct world, where you have to be careful with everything you say or write, that swearing becomes increasingly rife on stage, screen and in public, but it still remains an unsophisticated thing to do in the wrong company and could be seen as the thin end of the wedge in a society which seems to have a split personality when it comes to accepting matters of morality. Swearing is easy, perhaps avoiding it at inappropriate times is more difficult, and that's the crux of the matter. Perhaps, like cigarette smoking before it it will eventually become the "un-clever" thing to do.
  20. 1 point
    I think you get a harsh rep and normally have a valid point. I don't always agree, but I can usually see your point. In this instance, I don't even understand your point and I'm not entirely sure you do. We lose focus after scoring, like every other team that has existed, ever? It's well known that all teams are most vulnerable when they score. This is not a City phenomenon. I agree they could have handled their one goal lead better, because they ultimately lost it but I believe that has zero to do with the celebrations when the goal went in. When you score a goal there is always a joyous celebration, when you score a goal that appears to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and puts one foot into the Premiership I think that can go a step further. I didn't see any poor play, lack of concentration or celebrations in the following 10 minutes that makes any suggestion - what-so-ever - that the (deserved) exuberant celebrations were in any way to blame for us losing the lead. Sometimes the other team scores...
  21. 1 point
    I really don't understand how you are a football fan LDC. On the occasions when you do go to a game don't you ever go just a bit mental when we score unexpectedly and salvage a game when all seemed lost ? Sport is an emotional business both for spectators and players. It's those highs that compensate the lows. Forget the bigger picture and try living for the moment. You might get to like it.
  22. 1 point
    I’m pleased to say I have absolutely no idea what you two are talking about
  23. 1 point
    Premier League teams don't play in the 1st round...
  24. 1 point
    I have noticed an increasing amount of football posts on this Brexit forum lately, it needs to stop.
  25. 1 point
    Many thanks for your valuable contribution.