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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Indy_Bones

  1. Indy_Bones

    Ben Godfrey - phew

    Sorry dude, was reading/posting from a mate's older phone which doesn't show any of the emojis for some bizarre reason.
  2. Indy_Bones

    Ben Godfrey - phew

    Can't see it myself, Hanley has looked fairly weak in both pre-season fitness games, and I'm surprised he's not already been sold,- especially after the Blackburn link. Godfrey, Klose and Zimm (when he's back) to fight it out for the 2 central places, with Hanley (if we keep him) or a youngster like Rocky taking the 4th spot as eme cover.
  3. Indy_Bones

    New home kit...

    And therein lies the issue NN. Here's a sample from Cotton Traders, a place I often get T-shirts and sweaters from: 5XL = 152-157cm Chest A full TWENTY centimetres more than the 5XL in the Errea shirt, and 10cm more than the 8XL maximum available in the Errea shirt. Similarly if I look on Jacamo, another place I've ordered from on occasion: 5XL = 163-168cm Chest, which is even larger than the Cotton Traders sizing (which is understandable somewhat as they market to bigger people), and again, a good 20cm larger in just a 5XL than in the biggest size 8XL Errea shirt. A few cm's here and there is fine, but that much variance is beyond ridiculous and makes a mockery of the Errea sizing, because they are simply NOT correctly sized, and it's misrepresentative of the shirt size by claiming that 142cm's is 8XL, because I've never seen even a 4XL that small, never mind 8XL (which would swamp even me from most places I could order).
  4. Indy_Bones

    New home kit...

    Well if you're a 4XL and need a 7XL Tilly, then I'm stuffed, as I need a large 5XL or normal 6XL, and sounds like the 8XL may be a bit snug. I wish clubs would follow a normal sizing guide instead of making it 2 sizes smaller and claiming it's still a bigger size...
  5. Indy_Bones

    New home kit...

    I usually fit into either a 5XL or 6XL in a normal T-Shirt, so really appreciate the club catering to us bigger fans (even if the sizes are a bit on the small side).
  6. Indy_Bones

    Transfer rumours

    Yes, god forbid we should speculate about potential signings on an internet discussion forum - oh the humanity!
  7. Indy_Bones

    Love Island

    All the advances in technology, science, medicine and other fields to advance our civilization over the past 50 years, yet the TV is still full of utter dross like this, soap operas, and programs with pretentious no-mark wannabees trying to actually become famous for being good at actually nothing. God help us if something happens to David Attenborough, as I dread to think what nonsense would be drafted in to replace him...
  8. Indy_Bones

    Leo Vegas......now dafabet

    Yes, and maybe if we had Barca's money we'd be in a position to turn down the best deal for the club in terms of sponsor in favour of this, but we're not and it makes no financial sense to do so.
  9. Indy_Bones

    Leo Vegas......now dafabet

    Now THAT is something I can fully agree with.
  10. Indy_Bones

    Leo Vegas......now dafabet

    You could just as easily order 24 cans and a litre of Vodka for online delivery through a supermarket (and some local shops offer this as well), but we're not castigating Tesco et al for offering the service. I can order ridiculous amounts of food online as well for that matter, and nobody is going to tell KFC that they need to be more responsible in providing endless chicken to customers. On both of these services I could spaff huge sums without getting up, but neither would be getting the hassle that the betting companies are. Just as a side note, I don't gamble much beyond a weekly Lotto ticket and the occasional quid or two on the footy if the mood takes me, so it's not like I'm some gambling obsessed fan who's defending their enjoyment with this stance, I just don't see how a shirt logo became Pandora's Box.
  11. Indy_Bones

    Leo Vegas......now dafabet

    Isn't that EVERY hour at Wetherspoons???
  12. Indy_Bones

    Leo Vegas......now dafabet

    Certainly in the case of alcohol companies, the truth is that far more people like a drink (even if it's just a single glass of wine or quick pint) than people regularly gamble or smoke. If you asked 20 people, around 3-4 of them would likely be smokers (often depending on area of the country), probably a few more than that would gamble (which is higher because of things like the National Lottery etc), but I'd expect at least 15+ of the 20 to say that they have a drink at least once a week in some form or another. Sadly, the more people do something, the more socially acceptable it appears to become regardless of the implications this can have. We spend millions each year dealing with drink related crime and injury, not to mention hospital care for people with drinking related problems, yet there are pretty much NO restrictions on people getting totally slaughtered (note the more recent 'binge drinking' issues), and nobody seems to bat an eyelid. Interesting to note that there's not been a single death directly attributed to use of Cannabis (i.e. somebody smoked too much of it and died) yet this is an illegal substance, whereas Alcohol has caused innumerable problems over hundreds of years, but as long as you're 18 then you're good to go! If we'd only just discovered Alcohol, it would undoubtedly be a banned substance, but far too many people (including those in global governments) like a drink so the whole issue gets ignored, all whilst people are moaning about a club shirt having a betting companies logo on it...
  13. Indy_Bones

    New Kit???

    It HAS to be a non-gambling, non-alcohol and similar industry for any under 18 promotions/clubwear AFAIK due to regulations in the industry (which is absolutely a good thing for that age grouping).
  14. Indy_Bones

    New Kit???

    That's fine Zac, people can agree to disagree but I'm not "missing the point". If we followed the logic through to it's most extreme end, ANY advertising would be banned for fear of causing people to develop an addiction to something which leads to financial ruin and potential personal distress or even loss of life. Gambling and Alcohol addiction are emotive subjects, people (including myself) have seen the direct damage they can cause, but despite this, I still don't blame the companies behind them for advertising their products. I feel extremely sorry for the people who have become addicted and the consequences this has caused, but I also think to myself - why didn't they seek professional help to combat their addiction before it was too late? I know mental health services are not the most accessible at times in the UK on the NHS, nor are they often as well funded as they need to be and sometimes even carry an unfair stigma, but I also tend to think that if someone has £100 to blow on a day-long drinking session every day, then they have £100 to pay for professional help - the problem is getting them to make that choice instead of going to the pub or the bookies, and that's often where you need a strong group of friends or family members to keep encouraging them to do so (which isn't always the case), but that also shouldn't mean that the other 95% (or whatever figure it may be) of people who are able to say "No" should have to accept a ban on advertising because of it. The official guidelines for alcohol advertising on TV are: "Ads for alcoholic drinks must not feature, imply, condone or encourage irresponsible or immoderate drinking. " Similarly, adverts for gambling: "Marketing communications must not portray, condone or encourage gambling behaviour that is socially irresponsible or could lead to financial, social or emotional harm" With that in mind, in what way does having a shirt sponsor break this code? NCFC isn't saying that people should go onto LeoVegas and spend all their cash, the players aren't constantly encouraging people to place bets on matches or spend a fortune on online fruit machines either. The gambling companies are simply saying "If you fancy a bet, why not try us instead of the competition?", they may offer free bet incentives or similar to encourage people to do so (which is no different than food places giving out free samples, or sofa companies seemingly ALWAYS having a sale on), but they're absolutely not encouraging irresponsible, reckless or financially damaging gambling - unless you want to make the claim that ALL gambling fits these criteria? So where do we draw the line? Will Pukka Pies be the next target for encouraging irresponsible pie consumption? Will Coca-Cola be banned for reckless promotion of sugary drinks. I know, it sounds ridiculous and as though I'm taking things to a silly extreme to make a nonsensical point, but that really is the natural progression if we're saying that advertising is responsible for an individual's choices - poor or otherwise.
  15. Indy_Bones

    New Kit???

    It makes total sense. Advertising is designed to encourage people to buy or partake in things, but there's never a gun to your head, and how much you're willing to spend comes down to the availability of funds and level of self-control you CHOOSE to exercise. I can CHOOSE to go for a pint, I can CHOOSE to have 10 pints, I can CHOOSE to have 15 bottles of vodka a day, but seeing an advert for Carling or Smirnoff doesn't immediately mean that any of those 3 examples will happen because I still have free CHOICE, and can in fact CHOOSE to not even have a single drink. I'm sorry but we live in a blame society and it's already gone completely out of hand, e.g. you trip in the street because you weren't looking where you were going - you then sue the council for a slightly misaligned paving stone instead of going "That was MY fault for not looking where I was walking". Some people choose eat McDonalds 3 times a day for 10 years then complain that McDonalds made them overweight instead of accepting it was THEIR choice to constantly eat there and not give a damn about nutritional balance, rather than it being a case of Ronald McDonald bashing down their door each day to force feed them incessant Big Mac meals. A guy chooses to spend all his wages down the local boozer, and suddenly it's Kronenbourg's fault that he's become a raging alcoholic because they dared show an advert on TV with Cantona recommending the stuff. It all comes down to personal choice and self-control, some people display far less control and are more easily influenced than others, but it's up to them to learn how to exercise control rather than demanding that adverts be banned, and blaming all and sundry for their own failures.
  16. Indy_Bones

    A couple of transfer rumours...

    Emre Mor is a ridiculously talented player but one whose career has suffered somewhat based on attitude problems (some of which is attributed to his upbringing and an agent who was a terrible influence on him in this way). On form and with the right mindset he could easily play for almost any club in the modern game, but it would represent a large outlay in wages as BYG says, AND if he doesn't fit into the Farke mentality, it would be horribly disruptive. I also can't see it happening (I actually think he's too good for us, as awful as that sounds), and I'm not sure if our coaching team would be willing to take the risk even if he was interested and it was financially viable, despite his undoubted top level ability.
  17. Indy_Bones

    New Kit???

    Nobody forces anyone to gamble, and simply having a sponsor on a shirt doesn't make someone immediately have to go place bets on things. Just like when we were sponsored by Fosters it didn't turn fans into alcoholics, when it was N&P Building Society we didn't rush out to buy insurance or other policies, when it was Lotus I certainly wasn't coerced into buying an Elise, nor was I made to choke down Mustard under Colman's, and this season I haven't been pressured into spending my money on gambling either thanks to LeoVegas. I really don't understand modern society in this respect, how about people take responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming companies for their own inability to show a modicum of self-control...
  18. Indy_Bones

    Defensive midfielder

    A fully fit and on form Thompson could possibly do a good job there, the problem is that he hasn't been fully fit for the past 2 years...
  19. Indy_Bones


    My respect for this guy just goes up and up. Was a pleasure to watch on the pitch, and a total gent off it.
  20. For men - no, for women, children, the elderly or similar - yes. Men, in general, take action quicker and more decisively than Women - particularly in times of danger (this has been demonstrated in a number of studies btw), Men tend to have greater physical strength as well, which means they are more likely to be able to do what is necessary to get someone out of the way if a problem arises also. Being fair, in 40 years of being on this planet, I've only had to react a handful of times to these type of situations, but in every occasion, the person next to me was thankful for my actions, rather than feeling I was being sexist or condescending.
  21. Therein lies my major contention, why is it now considered patronising to do things for the potential safety and security of someone? When walking at night, I've always made the effort to cross the road if possible when a female is walking in front of me, so as to not make them worry they are being followed and possibly attacked, this is purely to make them feel safer and not in any way threatened - especially if they are alone. Similarly, if I position myself on the roadside of the pavement, odds are that if a car, debris or anything else comes towards the pavement, I'm likely to be first in the firing line and can actively work to get the other person out of the way if necessary. This doesn't mean that a woman cannot look after herself or anything like that, but seriously, what is actually wrong with acting in a way as to show you're looking out for their best interests in order to protect against possible danger??? Why does genuine consideration for another human being now have to be constantly analysed to look for potential offence, instead of it just being taken in the manner intended, which is respectful in its entirety?
  22. It's all part of the same point King. Many stay-at-home dads are ridiculed for doing so, being described as 'unmanly' and 'turning into a woman', rather than being respected as a loving and responsible parent who isn't bound by gender stereotyping. My statement about chivalry and similar is that we live in a society where many claim that respect has gone out of the window, yet often when performing actions that have always traditionally conveyed respect, instead many men are painted as being chauvinists, or treating women contemptuously for daring to offer to open a door, pay for a meal, or even walk on the side of the pavement next to the road (the final of which is something I've ALWAYS done, and will never stop doing). By trying to be the 'nice guy', we're instead vilified as an unwanted throwback to a bygone era, then told in the next breath that men have no respect for women any more... Simply explaining something politely and clearly is now 'mansplaining', purely sitting comfortably (bearing in mind we do have something between our legs that does get in the way) is now 'manspreading', and it appears that there is a concerted effort to make men behave as though they were, in fact, women, leaving many men utterly confused as to what their place is supposed to be in the new world order that feminism created. There should be no debate about which gender can or indeed should be the 'breadwinner', both options are equally viable, as it's equally viable for the father to be the parent who stays at home whilst the mother is out at work, yet this is not readily accepted either. To give a perfect (and personal) example, about 5 years ago, my wife and I decided to switch round in terms of being the parent at home, and she went to work in a school whilst I left my job as a team manager to stay at home to deal with childcare, housework and all the things my wife had been doing previously. Interestingly, during this period I received a lot of VERY disparaging remarks from people claiming I was a lazy dole bludger (I wasn't claiming JSA, Disability or anything outside of a small amount of tax credits), that I wasn't a 'real man', as a 'real man' goes to work so his wife doesn't have to, and numerous other comments which were in no way supportive of the choice we'd made together in regards to bringing up our children and how the work arrangements were made. Yet when I tried to point out how 'old-fashioned', stereotyped or ridiculous these views were to other people, it made not a blind bit of difference, as apparently, I should have been at work, doing DIY at the weekends, and expecting my wife to provide the happy home on my return from said work. That was the view of society that I experienced personally, and I wonder how many others are getting the same response when they try to adapt and develop to a modern relationship, when society itself still views this area in the same way they have for the past few millennia, yet I open a door for a woman and I'm some sort of sexist scumbag...
  23. It doesn't, but the key problem is that in many cases it's extremely difficult to afford even a relatively simple lifestyle if both parents are on minimal wages. As pointed out, childcare costs verge on exorbitant at times, and I know many years ago when my wife and I were looking at this, we found that the childcare cost alone was basically the same as a day's wage for someone on the lower end of the wage scale, so in essence they are going to work almost purely to pay for the childcare needed because they're not at home, which is utterly pointless. Current figures suggest that childcare averages around £242 per week for full-time coverage (which is approx £48.40 per day), the current minimum wage is £8.21, so on an average of 7.5 hours per day (37.5 hours per week, which is normal) that's a daily wage of £61.58, take away tax and NI of around 20% and you get £49.26 per day, minus the £48.40 for childcare and you're left with an actual wage of 0.86 pence, so £4.30 a week left after childcare costs... I wouldn't choose to basically give up parental responsibility during the day and have someone else looking after my kids in exchange for 86p a day, it's utterly ludicrous. As the article I linked pointed out, this was a family of 5 living on a single wage, who could happily afford a house, car, TV and live quite comfortably, this is a complete pipe dream in the current market, as even couples with BOTH people working can struggle to even get on the housing ladder, and thus we see the ever-widening gap, with no sign of abatement either. It doesn't make a difference if it's the man or woman staying at home (apart from limited situations e.g. Breastfeeding where the woman can't express enough at night to cover the man in the day), but the fact that finances these days make this impossible instead of personal choice is the sticking point.
  24. Indy_Bones

    The Champions

    I think McLean is going to be one of those players that it's often tough to really see exactly what they are bringing half the time, yet when you analyse the underlying data, it shows a very different player than mere observation alone allows. I'm probably one of the only people who never rated Roy Keane, thought he was an overrated, bad tempered, frequently dirty player, who wasn't a patch on people like Vieira in a similar role, but you can't argue with Man Utd's trophies or SAF's belief in the guy.
  25. Alan Dzagoev would be an interesting possibility however...