Google Bot

Good point, it'd give the forum credence if we had someone discussing football, too.

Look at the Summit Foundation, of which he was talking about when making this gaffe. They're actively engaged in doing as you say and making the same point as you are. However, I do question whether the foundation work is more a vanity project used to validate his personal goal in climbing Everest. And i'm likely cynical because of his ego, but it's not helped when reading published text like this: "Stuart has always had the dream of climbing Mount Everest and when in 2020 he decided to pursue that dream Zoe felt that if he was going to set himself such an extreme challenge then he may as well do it for a good cause!" "Stuart will be providing the financial support to achieve his goal of climbing Everest and will use it to raise awareness of the foundation." I dunno, something about it just seems a bit creepy to me, how it's him first in all aspects. Then you throw in the involvement in Soul Church, it's links to hillsong and reputation of being cult-like. Then you consider how both appear to promote philanthropy to raise their profiles..... I just don't know what to think, really.

I can't bring myself to click on Mirror, Sun or Daily Mail links, Does it say on what grounds? Defamation I could appreciate more than racism, perhaps. It'd be quite funny if something like this did go the distance and it transpired that those named had been making claims about their pasts in order to act tough around other players, and Webber took it as gospel. 🙂

Take care my friend.

It's amazing how much you notice the flag being used with incorrect colours. I was walking behind a copper this morning and noticed he had a black union jack on his uniform.

Bit late to the party, but nice idea. I'd like to know who got these without clicking through the squad lists from the years they were at the club though. 😉

Can any of us come to such a binary conclusion without knowing how his internal dialog went, though? I think it's better to ask whether those named individuals and their families are justified in perceiving it as racist, or at the very least that you can appreciate why they would perceive it as such. We will learn very little about each other otherwise.

It's part of my Norwich City fan fiction on Patreon. Next week a staff member returns in their final week of employment, which results in sticky fingers in the boardroom after someone close delivers a surprising blow. 👍

And he wasn't wrong to be fair. There's been himself, his wife, his mother-in-law, and their nephew sat together in the posh seats. Then you have Mr & Mrs Webber a little way off that, all having a jolly good time. (When we're winning of course, they can't do miracles!).

Felt like that was coming

Benny Hill theme, met with salutes from a solemn faced crowd stood with their tongues out. Any hint of a smile results in arrest.

Have you heard the interview? He wasn't highlighting the struggles on a racial level, he was talking in a much broader sense as concerned about the world his children will grow up in. The discussion was how some organisations are ignoring top 'privileged' uni grads and turning to less privileged individuals due to having a greater determination to seize the opportunity provided. I think Red Bull were the example. He then goes on to say that football has always done this, Naming several black players and relating them to facing jail if they didn't make it as footballers. And that's what upsets people, as it goes against the point being made. That they got to this point on their own merit and determination, not because they were afraid of jail.

I'd agree with that, but they have challenged it by placing Stu on gardening leave and bought someone who appears to be much more grounded and self aware in Knapper. What we may not know is the reasoning for Stu to step down and how much of that was a group decision but publicly painted as his decision. Delia/MWJ clearly well within the bubble and emotionally involved with both the Webbers, but hopefully that chapter is closed now and Zoe can gain respect as her own person again.

So we should be disappointed in those who don't first consider the effect on business operations when morality issues are presented? The AI enabled autonomy debate will get interesting then.

I'd imagine they feed from the advice provided by staff employed, and their primary responsibility is to ensure that we remain solvent so any revenue stream has to be utilised. They must be doing something right as we're one of the most consistently well attended clubs, plus picking up rewards for fan engagement. We could opt to target mid-table championship level, cut back on outgoings and thus make things more affordable for fans. But is that what the majority want? In fact, does the majority of our fan base even attend matches? I haven't a clue how big our fan-base is on a greater scale. So, in regards to pledges, a season ticket holder may have different needs versus someone who gets their engagement via social media (youtube etc) level.

It's never bad to review such situations from a personal/humane level as most are doing. We shouldn't uphold morals on the basis of how it affects business, so i'd be far more disappointed if people were taking this approach, personally.

I suggest that this could be more due to the age of our owners and them preferring to distribute responsibilities to others. Not saying they've given up, but you can't expect them to be able to put so much in and still maintain the drive, as it's draining - we saw that when Farke got sacked, I'm not sure any of them were comfortable with it. I think their ethics and standards remain as they're passionate regarding the togetherness of the club, but it could be argued that the Webbers have taken advantage of that for personal gains and as a result been allowed to created a bubble from which delusions of grandeur have formed. It could also be argued that Stuart unwittingly attempted to take credit for how another persons child turned out in this recent interview, and further demonstrates how easily you can become wrapped up in your own self importance.

I just have sympathy for the players and family for being profiled in such a clumsy way, for me this is more related to class than race.

Fans have raised 20k EUR to keep him, only 4,880k to go lads! https://www.gofundme.com/f/kaufoption-christos-tzolis

He would've made a great character on the Harry Enfield show.

I don't think they were intentionally racist, but you can't really defend him as he's clearly profiled those players in direct relation to their other options in life being jail. I think it's more of a class thing, but then so was Grenfell, sometimes it goes hand in hand, sometimes it's deliberate, sometimes it's normalised and accidental. Tricky subject really, I think he's a man that would reach out to those people and seek to help as it gives him a kick. But his ego... again... has landed him in the not so sweet smelling brown sticky stuff.

I think what he had in his mind at that point of naming players was different to what came out of his mouth, though. He later threw the word 'jail' in thinking it was making a greater point, but didn't consider the ramifications of that from a personal perspective. It's been spoken before that Rowe had an issue with authority and got kicked out of the academy previously, I can't remember who let that slip, but sure it was on Radio Norfolk - Forbes perhaps? So that's most likely what he was thinking more specifically to Rowe... That they had to give him a second chance, and specifically work with him to unlock who he is today.

I think he was trying to over-dramatise the point and that's where it went **** up. Mentioning that either of them could be in jail is a slur on the player and their families morality, and his ego just fails to filter it out. This is due to his concentration solely being on magnifying the point in how important he/we were in helping these players, there was no thought beyond that.

"You're joking - Not another one!?"

Isn't that because she was on maternity leave?