NewNestCarrow

A -19 balance would be significant if all other metrics were equal. But they are not. Over the last ten seasons NCFC's Win/Loss numbers are in the negative, likewise Goals For/Against. It is illogical to suggest that the pen-count should be any different.

And their Chairperson shouldn't hide behind a private social media account. The Trust represents *some* fans, in much the same way that Proud Canaries represents *some* fans.

Stats for the last 10 seasons, to end of May 2023 Games played = 478 (162 wins, so 34%) Pens Awarded for NCFC = 52 (42%) Pens Conceded by NCFC = 71 Those figures don't suggest much bias.

I very much doubt that. The Athletic don't publish match reports for all 92 clubs, so why would they pay someone to be in attendance?

I can't imagine anyone would make that kind of massive commitment. Not even the BBC do that. The Athletic has around 1.3m subscribers and still loses aorund $30m+ per year. Their coverage of 'minor' teams is only going one way.

I gave up at that point. It's like he's playing 'Where's Waldo' with any interesting tidbits.

Original tie at Portsmouth on the Sat, replay took place the following Thursday. Imagine the horror of having to organise annual leave & travel at such short notice?!! (of course walk-up train tickets were affordable in those days)

Officially 43,129

Over 43,000 for a weekday-afternoon kick-off. Prob the fullest CR has ever been (the 1963 record gate was after the South Stand had been enlarged) Shockingly there were 269 complimentary tickets given out that day. No wonder the club was in such a state.

So you don't think the outlay far outweighs the benefit? You don't think that spending big on (arguably) unnecessary infrastructure is a route sure to make an owner unpopular with fans? You think that NCFC can fill thousands of new seats with tourists & lounge-types, paying £300+ per match? And what is this "ulterior motive"?

ETHICS = IRRATIONAL HATRED OF THE CURRENT NCFC BOARD

Disagree. The most pertinent point is that some fans will use any old, thrown-together (misleading) data to continue to find fault with their football club. There isn't even any need to be forensic about it; just 20 mins' work has shown me that a QPR ST in their equivalent of Barclay top tier seat is £749 for an adult, £507 concession. The worst seat in their Main Stand is £628 (£386 concession) Anyone with an ounce of objectivity knows that chart of ST prices was just half-arsed & incomplete humbug. Even you know it.

In early July the club sent me an email reminding me that I was to reuse last season's ST Suggest you check your Comms settings or your old email folders!

Point 1. Did Mervyn write to the EDP and congratulate the club in 2021, 2019, 2015 2011 & 2010 for fully delivering (maybe even over-delivering?) on ST value? I'll bet he didn't Point 2a. Has Mervyn ever written to the EDP & highlighted the club's achievement in over-delivering in terms of wage-bill (2019, 2011 & 2010 spring immediately to mind) I'll bet he hasn't Point 2b. The pricing table to which he refers is a simplistic overview, and certainly not a forensic or objective view of ticket-pricing (as has likely been discussed previously) Point 3. He went to Portaloo Road to watch a match last season? No more comment necessary. Point 4. He can't be bothered to accurately type the first line of the club anthem ("On The Ball, City")

Don't think so, as McIntosh & Wilson both started (CBs) Renecke, another CB, also came on after an hour.

McCallum played for the U21s yesterday. He clearly has not developed as the recruiters thought he would.

Signing a local lad for a cheap-ish fee , who is in the first team at 20 yrs old, with room for development; on low wages who is happy to commit for the long-term. What's not to like? No team at our level is made up exclusively of Pukkis or Buendias

The U16s also won their 'derby' match, away from home, 2-1

I'm going to ask a question, and apols if a) it has already been asked & answered and b) it is stupid: Do the Takeover Rules say anything about a 'minority' shareholder refusing to sell shares at the "previously-purchased price" but then, later on, selling to the same person (let's call him 'Mark') at a lower price? Might this be a previously-unforseen hurdle?

Isn't everyone forgetting that Jones probably paid only £1 each for the bulk of his share-holding? [In June 1983 NCFC stated that the number of called-up shares had increased by 83,964 and the "Proceeds of share issue" was . £108,049. Chase bought 27,500 shares, Jones purchased 25,000 and other share-holders were given a 4-for-1 purchase option. Clearly no-one was paying £30 per share in those days]

"I'm really very objective" says the poster who is 20-odd posts into telling everyone how wrong they are!.

Roll Up, Roll Up; offer your opinons and then enjoy being told how wrong you are!

To be fair, I think your real interest is in being argumentative. - claps hands emoji -

Just because 'you' are not bothered doesn't make it OK. Being accurate - and respecting history - is really nothing to be ashamed of.

I didn't mention the club, but I'm guessing detail isn't your forte. If the banner at the River End said "6 foot 4, eyes of blue, Duncan Forbes is after you" would you criticise anyone that pointed it out? If the Friendship Trophy was engraved "Presented by Robert Chase...." would you shrug your shoulders and say "No-one is perfect"? If the Milk Cup was engraved "1985 Norwich United" would that be OK with you?