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

nutty nigel

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by nutty nigel

  1. 3 minutes ago, splendidrush said:

    Aren't Errea Italian? Maybe there are fewer of the larger proportioned in Italy than the UK.

    What's with all the centimeters? Inches man, inches. 

    Don't ever order a shirt from China....

    • Haha 1

  2. 3 hours ago, Indy_Bones said:

    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...

    So on the website it says a 7XL is 140cm chest and 83cm length. They go up to 8XL which is 142cm chest and 83cm length. Guide is here : -


    Erreà Men's Replica Shirts

    Size Chest (cm) Length (cm)
    S 104 71
    M 108 74
    L 112 76
    XL 114 77.5
    2XL 120 79
    3XL 124 80.5
    4XL 128 82.5
    5XL 132 83
    6XL 134 83
    7XL 140 83
    8XL 142 83

  3. 4 minutes ago, king canary said:

    But, and this is the question nobody has supplied a real answer to, how does regulating gambling advertising affect the happy, non problem gamblers? Is their experience negatively affected by not seeing wall to wall gambling adverts or by Premier League teams not wearing the name of some random Chinese casino company? 

    It makes no difference to me. I'd like to see it. But that doesn't mean I want our football club to suffer unilaterally while it's all legal and above board.

  4. 1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

    Yes I know. And it is difficult to regulate. And we are a hullava way down the rud now bor..


    And just to add there are people suggesting that deregulating drugs would be in peoples interest. Until it ruined too many lives I guess. Don't we always want the way we don't have it...

  5. 1 minute ago, ricardo said:

    I can see where this is a problem. In the USA many states still don' t allow gambling but I doubt it ever stopped anyone getting a bet on. It just increased the profits for gangsters.

    Yes I know. And it is difficult to regulate. And we are a hullava way down the rud now bor..


  6. 2 minutes ago, JF said:

    The comparison of gambling to smoking is an inappropriate comparison. Smoking literally damages the health of everyone that does it and also those around that breath it in. Gambling does ruin some lives but there are also many successful gamblers/traders that make a lot of money from it. Far from ruining my life, it’s given me a healthy second income. Also I’d go so far as to say I enjoy it. Each to their own

    Yes it's a poor comparison. At the same time as smoking was being regulated gambling was being deregulated. As far back as you can trace human history you will also find gambling. So when gambling was regulated it was done in the clear knowledge of the pitfalls and the need to do so. Where we are now is probably worse than anytime in history because people can more easily do their gambling in a secret life between them and their phone. Even if the companies self-regulate they have no idea what other companies are involved.

  7. 1 minute ago, king canary said:

    With the membership scheme?

    Realistically I'd say keep it how it was apart from dropping the points held by season ticket holders for away trips down to about 500. I could see an argument for a slight raising of the price justified to offset some of lost income from the £30 home and away price cap. 

    Idealistically, with us knowingly being unable to compete financially I'd like the club to try and innovate and see how certain amounts of the Premier League money can be used to benefit fans/the community. Whether that is a Premier League 'bonus' of £50 off season tickets (which by my fag packet accounting would have only cost the club just over £1m which is a small chunk of the Premier League cash) or turning down a £3m sponsorship deal (which again isn't a huge amount in the grand Premier League scheme) to put the Community Sports Foundation or similar on our shirts. 


    I don't know what membership was. I'm guessing £30 and £20 for juniors. Is that right? So that's a massive increase if you take your kids to football. And having an away membership is an even bigger increase for season ticket holders who go because they  now appear to have had that £30 taken away. Season ticket holders also have the added "incentive" of seeing casual tickets being brought in line to what they pay per match. 

    I didn't think it the old system was fair as it was and I don't see why season ticket holders should get any away points at all. membership was included in the cost of a season ticket so once they have that I don't think they should get anymore advantage over a member.

    I think there should be just one membership for both home and away. Having two penalises fans for who have to travel long distances to both home and away games.

    When I was an away season ticket holder for a few seasons it used to cost me £20. If I hadn't been a home season ticket holder I'm guessing it would have cost me £50. (£20 + £30). And for that I had to make a commitment not to send back anymore than 2 tickets. (I think it was 2). That was 15 years ago. So taking that all into account I guess £50 and £30 Junior would be fair for priority membership with standard membership at £35 and £20?

    3m is a massive sum of money to magnanimously turn away. Our costs go up massively in the PL. It would put us at a heck of a disadvantage.

    Anyway, this is all off topic and I still don't see what this has to do with being a community club. Or even a community orientated club.

    BTW Kingo as an aside, Woodfordes gave away thousands of bottles of beer at the Blackburn game. However poor old Duncan missed out.....



  8. 20 minutes ago, king canary said:

    Personally I don't think the new membership scheme squares well with the previous comments from our majority shareholders about how badly they feel fans are treated.

    Community club is a bit of a nebulous term- it can mean different things to different people. Personally I would have liked to have seen the talk of valuing fans and wanting to see them treated better backed up with actions.


    What would you have liked to have seen Kingo?

  9. 1 minute ago, king canary said:

    I feel a bit like you're projecting a bit with that to be honest.

    The membership scheme in some ways suits me better than the points system- I can pay £50 and have a better chance of getting an away ticket than I would have had under the old scheme. I also don't have kids so the high cost of junior memberships don't affect me negatively Yet I'm anti the new membership scheme because I don't think it is especially fair.

    People aren't all just self interested and demanding what suits them best.

    Yes but if you look at some of the statements made since you will see what I mean.

    I haven't brought one but I also get why people have. Would have been better if everyone had brought standard membership but I guess that was never going to happen.

    But surely we can't measure the community values of our club by the price we pay for memberships / tickets? Or do people really see community measured by what it costs them for these things?


  10. Just now, Hoola Han Solo said:

    I think the membership schemes were poorly devised and aren't putting the fans first. I believe a more sensible pricing plan would have made it fairer. It has upset a lot of loyal and long-term fans. 

    As for the gambling sponsor, I personally don't have an issue with it. I have had a couple of periods of gambling addiction. Thankfully they didn't affect my life insomuch that it just reduced my savings. A betting company logo isn't going to get me rushing to gambling sites, but everybody is different and I can understand the other side of the argument.

    In my opinion we have a good community club ethic, but at the end of the day the self-funding model means we have to get the best deal possible sometimes, in ways that could be seen as going against the 'community' mindset. I am comfortable with this; I was just curious as to your thoughts on these two recent issues.

    I don't see the clubs that aren't self funding making decisions based on personal morals either. Whilst I don't like where we are right now with gambling that's where we are. Morals are all very well but they are also individual. Who decides for everyone if something is morally wrong?

    In my view the membership is not well thought out especially as it penalises families. I haven't brought one and won't.

    It may be easier to get an acceptable scheme if we all approach it as a community rather than demanding whatever suits us personally.

  11. 3 minutes ago, king canary said:

    I gave an opinion of what I'd personally like to see.

    By that measure everybody commenting on this thread is demanding the club be run according to their morals. Funny you only bothered with me...

    Exactly Kingo. You'd personally like to see the club run according to your moralsūüôÉūüĎć

  12. 2 minutes ago, Hoola Han Solo said:

    Do you agree with the new membership scheme and gambling sponsor, Nutty? Do you think it's befitting a 'community club'?

    I like that this is a community club and wouldn't change it for the world. But I don't see community as something that can be measured by how it affects me or whether it disadvantages itself to fit in with my morals.

    What do you see as a community Hoola?

    Kingo, the paragraph beginning I know this is radical...


  13. 10 minutes ago, king canary said:

    I have no idea what you're in favour of as you've not said- instead you've just wanted to tell me that you know what I'm saying more than I do...

    Only because you stated quite clearly that our club should run its business to suit your morals.

    If you missed my opinion it's that it's our own choice whether we buy a shirt or not. I would like gambling and associated advertising to be regulated far more than it is but that's not an issue for our club. Not unless they comply with all the other morals of every Tom, Rick and Kingo.

  14. 29 minutes ago, king canary said:

    That isn't what I'm saying and you know it.

    As a society we a few years ago agreed that cigarette advertising needed greater regulation as the product was harmful and it was important to change the way it was advertised for the protection of future generations. I'm sure back then there were people making the same arguments against it as you are now. I'm confident in a few years time gambling advertised will be viewed similarly and won't be because they decided to fit in with my morals.


    But that was what you were saying. You also seem to be arguing that I'm in favour of the deregulation which has taken us here. I'm not. I liked how it used to be. Your comparison with cigarette advertising is not well thought out. Because as far as I know legislation was never changed to encourage people to smoke. But it  was changed to encourage people to gamble.

  15. We live in a democracy and over the years democratic governments have deregulated the gambling industry to where it is today. So whilst I understand people taking a personal stand because of their own morals it's wrong to expect others or our club to do so. The people who make these decisions at our club are charged with competing with others within the boundaries of what's legal in our democratic country. 

    Some of the stuff I've read on social media questioning if we area community club because of this seems plain daft to me. There's a lot goes on in the world that is legal and against my morals but all I can do is make a personal stand or lobby politicians to make changes to the law.

    • Like 2