Jump to content

canarydan23

Members
  • Content Count

    8,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by canarydan23

  1. You're so close to getting it with that first sentence. Just follow that thought a little further and you'll get there. Unless the blind rage caused by someone having the temerity to criticise an action by the football club is holding you back. Are you guys aware that you're the opposite end of the spectrum to the uber-critic lobby you detest? The way you look at those fundamentalist miserablists, people look at you. You're two sides of the same the coin, your judgement is just clouded by an opposite bias. It's quite amusing to witness. Did you just learn the up the pole thing, by the way? Nothing up with that, I didn't know what it meant until today either, I just thought it might explain why you keep erroneously shoehorning it in.
  2. Are you trying to convince me? Or yourself? NARS also said that the competition would be for home fans only, and would have access to similar data to "reasonably assume" the fans were not Ipswich fans. It's just a **** move. As weirdly obsessed as @nutty nigel is to make out that I'm one of these anti-club weirdos, my posting history will attest to the fact that I'm not. If they do something I think is ****, I'll call it out. This is an example of it. It's not my fault that there's been a lot to call out in the last couple of years. I'm more than happy to have that described as being up the pole (I had to look that up, I'm of Irish stock so to me that means something entirely different and biologically impossible) if it keeps those with a peculiar and pathological need to deflect all and any criticism on the club as irrational happy. It is weird though. Again, why do you think the EDP thought it newsworthy? Delia won't come at you with an egg whisk if you turn around and say, "I love you Norwich, but you've dropped a **** there".
  3. So you did read it? Or you didn't read it? And the PSE Live raffle could lead to Ipswich fans in home seats but the club's Own The Pitch competition couldn't? You're tying yourself in knots in this thread, to be honest.
  4. Probably a good job; there were words with more than three syllables as well as evidence that would have meant you'd have to admit you were wrong. And you're incapable of dealing with both.
  5. I think one of the traits of a club that's "connected" to its community is one that supports initiatives by local businesses that support local charities. So by that metric, yes, this is an example of disconnect. And naivety? In a thread where people, in their absolute desperation to defend the club regardless of what it does, are positing that; Ipswich fans are going to flood a raffle by a local, Norwich-based business to try and get tickets AND Those Ipswich fans might win the raffle AND Those Ipswich fans are going to cause significant trouble inside of a corporate box That is naivety. And had the club done what you said and said "Sorry guys, we can't let you use the box for that purpose because of the T&Cs and concerns over the volatile nature of the derby but here is a contribution to NARS to make up for it", it would never have made the news, would it? And the reason it made the news is because it's a surprising story, as in not many people will read it and think that it was a pleasant way for the club to behave. Interestingly, I wonder what thought-process went through the Own the Pitch competition at the end of last year that offered two season tickets for the rest of the year. OHMYGOD! For only £12 Ipswich fans can enter and might win the tickets AND THEY WOULDN'T EVEN BE BEHIND GLASS!!! Where is the due diligence?!?! Ironically, entering that competition also led to a boost in the number of AEDs in Norfolk. Do you know what saves more lives than AEDs? Norfolk Accident Rescue Service. So guys, particularly the intellectual giant that is @Branston Pickle, make it make sense. Are the club correct in shutting down something that could lead to Ipswich fans watching the derby behind a box in the home end and therefore incorrect at running their own competition that could lead to two Ipswich fans sitting in the ground for the derby? Or were they correct in running the Own the Pitch competition that could lead to two Ipswich fans sitting among fans in the actual seats for the derby and therefore incorrect at shutting down the raffle that would benefit NARS? Or have we established that it doesn't matter what the club does in your eyes and I'm actually right about what I thought was a tongue-in-cheek reference to seal clubbing?
  6. Actually, I was a tad foolish. You in particular wouldn't stand and cheer from the dunes whilst the club bludgeoned seals, you'd grab a club and join in and screech hysterically at the people who criticised the club's seal-clubbing policy.
  7. Listen to yourselves. Just for once. You've got nutty nigel having to make out that I, an overtly pro-Delia and MWJ fan, is some anti-club fundamentalist. You've got Branston Pickle making out that there is a genuine threat that a raffle promoted by a Norwich-based company for a Norfolk-based charity is going to be swamped by Ipswich fans that might win and therefore be in the hazardous position of watching the Derby from, *gasps* indoors in a private box?! Just be honest with yourselves, the club could take up seal-clubbing for sport and you nutters would watch from the dunes screaming encouragement.
  8. Well I for one must say I'm incredibly surprised at the names of people defending the club on this. Let's be honest, the club could put up a roadblock on Carrow Road that prevented a NARS vehicle reaching an emergency and the usual crew would say, "People are berating the club for this?! They're just ensuring ALL vehicles travel safely around the stadium". It's a private box. They've stated its for home fans only and if some s(ummers choose to contribute to a worthwhile cause and win, what are they going to do, punch people through the ****ing glass? Years ago there was a load of Leicester fans in a box in the River End that included Robbie ****ing Savage. I bet not a penny of that went to a charity. Pathetic, Karen-style, pencil-pushing ***. If the council ever put traffic wardening out to tender the club should enter. They've got the right mindset. We were no better under previous regimes when we hounded a local brewery for calling an ale On The Ball or something like that.
  9. I suspect they might know that a squad with that much talent should never be 15 points behind last year's League One runners-up? And that with all that said talent, it might be quite frustrating to watch football that has at times this season been pretty turgid? And again, with all that talent, maybe they could be achieving more with better coaching/leadership? You clearly think we've got a talented squad, why do you think we're 9th in the Championship?
  10. Or just play football? What a cross. Did it hit the H or O of Anglian Home Improvements? Need more like that.
  11. Shush, you're displaying knowledge of the sport, these idiots don't like that.
  12. Oh no, someone has thrown a football at me, whatever am I, a professional footballer, meant to do?!
  13. Wahey! Take Nunez off! Can't sub McLean, he's been awesome. ****ing ****.
  14. Unless it's your job to play football. **** me, our fanbase are idiots.
  15. Reckon he'll win it for February?!
  16. As has been said, the only way this is even slightly feasible is if Wagner has been told he's off at the end of the season. If that is the case, this works for all parties; Wagner has more long-term job security and we don't have to pay him off as I understand he's on a rolling 12 month deal so will pocket a year's salary when he does get the old heave-ho (I could be wrong on that point). It'd be pretty interesting if a caretaker came in for the rest of the season, someone from the Youth setup or Neil Adams, and managed to guide us to the playoffs and promotion, what would the club do in that scenario?!
  17. You seem to want to empower our current set of politicians. That's a frightening concept, truth be told. I've explained the difference already, a constitutional change would require a mandate through a pre-election pledge, any attempt to ride roughshod over it would be met with resistance by the Supreme Court/second chamber. A backstop for a emergency powers could be built in, though would be subject to scrutiny and the prospect of being rolled back. Abolishing a second chamber and empowering imbeciles like Johnson, Sunak and Starmer even further is madness. Even with its hereditary privilege and rank nepotism the HoL still provides crucial checks and balances to our democratic process. Radically overhaul it for sure, even take steps to reduce the politics from it, but abolish it? Madness. British politics is broken; whether that's down to society as a whole I don't know, but honour simply doesn't exist anymore. I couldn't stand them, but Major and Thatcher would never have contemplated a lot of the behaviours of the likes of Boris Johnson. Even Starmer has abandoned putting any stock in common, decent honesty. These bustards needs their hands tying; the executive and the PM have too much power and not enough accountability. Win an election and you are effectively an elective dictatorship and entitled to do whatever you want until the next election, regardless as to what you said to the nation to earn their votes. A written constitution wouldn't fix it all entirely, but it would be a significant improvement.
  18. Yet another U-turn for Starmer, they won't be reinstating the cap on banker's bonuses and intend to rip up red-tape for the finance sector. We've been here before, haven't we? Have they forgotten 2008 entirely? In other, non-related news, Starmer's Labour has been receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds for investment firms and City financiers. Tory Lite is back. The only hope we have is that this is Starmer doing what Starmer does best; lying to impress people. Once he gets in power we have to hope he abandons this nonsense as quickly as he abandoned pretty much every one of his "pledges" he made during his leadership campaign.
  19. No one knows, but we can make a fairly accurate guess based on two pieces of known information; 1) Webber was involved in the purchase of it, therefore it's more likely to fail than succeed 2) No one else has purchased it; if there was even a whiff of evidence that this thing was developing players well, other people would be jumping on the bandwagon. The reality is, a two million goes on that arcade game they have in Yarmouth where you punt a ball on the end of a string past a plastic goalie for 50p would have done more for our players. Also, a million is buttons to RB Leipzig. For them, it's probably the equivalent to our vegetable patch. Having said that, a few people have moaned about that too.
  20. I don't think you've even fully read your rank piece of propaganda that you ironically offer as a remedy to other propaganda. The ICJ did not rule on MH-17, its remit was to only cover financial funding of terrorists and not the supply of weapons that a Dutch court ruled were essentially supplied by Russia (and convicted two Russians to boot). So if you're claiming the theory (fact) that Russia were involved in downing flight MH-17 has been "debunked" you're talking total hogwash. It did rule that Russia violated conventions on both financing terrorism and racial discrimination. And whilst it stated Ukraine had not proven the ban on the Mejlis had a racial motivation, the ICJ had already rendered the ban illegal and ordered Russia to lift it, an order Russia continues to ignore. In your desperation for this ruling to make Russia look good, you've failed to conduct a thorough analysis.
  21. That the election result was a given would certainly have contributed to the low turnout, but it'd be ridiculous to suggest there wasn't more to the lowest turnout for almost a century (second lowest was 2005, common denominator?). 2019 was a foregone conclusion and go close to a 70% turnout. There was widespread disillusionment about Labour's failure to deliver on its promises, accompanied by an uninspiring opposition and Lib Dem party. In 1997, there was an almost universal belief that there was clear water between the two parties. Four years of Tony Blair shattered that illusion and millions just couldn't be bothered to drag themselves to the polling stations. An Electoral Commission study in 2001 found that 58% of people were very or fairly interested in the election, 6% up on 1997, and only 10% of non-voters cited apathy as the reason for staying away. Pre-1997, Labour promised to deal with the big issues of the day and to recharge the public's faith in politics. People had concluded that it was all **** so stayed home. It's another absolute joke of British democracy that the second least popular winning government since WW2 returned such a thumping majority. At the time it was the least popular winning government since WW2, but Blair would beat his own record in 2005.
×
×
  • Create New...