canary cherub

[quote user="Canaries Canary"]What options have we got if Mr Drury feels that it''s more important to be at his wife''s side rather than skippering the mighty yellows!?! [/quote] If I recall, we once had a home game against Wolves where one of their strikers went back to the West Midlands on the Friday night when his wife went into labour, stayed up all night until she''d had the baby, got back to Norwich by Saturday lunchtime and scored two goals against us in the afternoon. 

Apparently Adam Drury''s wife is due to go into labour with their first child any minute now . . .

Sounds like a horrible incident, and a career-threatening injury. Not a City legend perhaps, but does that matter? Get well soon Shaun.

I celebrated my semi-retired status by getting up when I felt like it.  Had a slash, cuppa tea, checked Sky Sports News, ran a bath. Then I cooked a full breakfast - egg, bacon, sausage, mush, toms, bubble etc. etc.  Magic.  Then . . . the doctor''s surgery phoned asking me to go in for a routine cholesterol check.  Have the health police installed a secret camera? 

[quote user="John -"] Thanks chaps - I take my hat off to you both. I wasn''t quite expecting such a reply so soon, but it''s certainly helped me clear up a few loose ends. I''ll certainly be looking to purchase a copy of that book in the not too distant future from the club shop. I actually missed out the 1913-14 list I had - This would really be the icing on the cake!! 1913-14 Bell - Defender Macdonald, Wilson - Wingers Ritchie - Forward Valiant - Centre-Half Valentine - Inside Forward Once again, many thanks.   [/quote] Here we are: BELL, George      MacDONALD, George William      WILSON, Daniel Lambert      RITCHIE, George Wright VALIANT, James      VALENTINE, Thomas  

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]Out of interest Mystic one, was their a player in the fifties by the name of Michael Ryan?[/quote] There''s no Michael Ryan listed in the book, YR.  It does not guarantee to be 100% complete but where there are gaps they are usually much earlier. Also it only includes players who made at least one first team appearance, not those who only played for the reserves.

With pleasure, John. The following information comes from "Glorious Canaries" by Mike Davage.  There''s a biography of each player as well if you''re interested.  I think it''s still obtainable from the club shop. 1905      BUSHELL, William      MUIR, Robert      BROWN, George Gerald      GRAHAM, Samuel 1909      GOOCH - the only Gooch I can find is Percy George but he was a centre forward, 1903-7 and 1909-10                CRAIG, Charles Thomson      CHAMBERS, Herbert      NEWLANDS, George      RAYNER, William Thomas 1910      DRUCE, Walter      CHICK, John William      GUNTON, Samuel Arthur      TAYLOR, Walter Joseph 1911      FELL, George      POTTER, Cecil Bertram 1912      PEARSON, James Henry      WOODLAND (no S), Arthur      BAUCHOP, William Fotheringham       HUGHES, William J 1913      SUTCLIFFE, Percy      TRAVIS, Aaron 1919/20   SKERMER, Herbert Edward      GROVES, John William      HALL, Fretwell      LAXTON, Edward George       KIRK, Walter Edward                       TAYLOR - can''t find any Taylor for 1919/20, the nearest is William, outside right 1931     Hope this helps. OTBC  

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]There are two extremes on here Those who want Worthy out and will use any piece of news as "evidence" for this, complaining about everything the club does.  This extreme consists of the likes of Mr Rankin, NotWorthy and We Need A Manager.  These creatures dub anyone expressing pro-club/pro-Worthy views as "KTF" as use the term as a form of mockery. Those who will defend everything the club does, no matter how big or small, and will label anyone saying otherwise as disruptive, whilst setting themselves up as the one and only "true supporter".  This camp is made up of... well... Ralph Wright.  Marty seems to be joining him, but the jury is still out on that one. But in amongst all this is the majority of us who can see both sides and would like to use this message board to debate, inform and entertain. Unfortunately, it seems to be those in the middle territory that suffer... [/quote] Evil, you can''t have been paying attention or you''d realise that CJF (Mr Rankin) has moved on a bit since last season.  He still tends to overreact and probably always will, but so did his father and grandfather before him I expect.  It''s not a crime.  Live and let live.  As for people who call themselves "NotWorthy" or "We need a Manager", what can you expect?  They''ve not been on here much at all lately.  Ralph unfortunately does not have an original thought in his head.  Ask him to back up his point of view with evidence and he resorts to insults.  It comes of being born in Ipswich (Ralph, your secret is out . . .) Marty''s "head is not right" due to spending too much time fondling his piggies . . .  If there''s one thing worse than a moaner, it''s someone moaning about the moaners.

There''s a historical link between hard core organised racism and football.  That''s the central reason why Kick Racism out of Football came about, it''s not just some PC nanny-state initiative. In the past, football matches have been used as a recruiting ground for groups like the National Front and Combat 18.  Not just The Den and Upton Park either, I witnessed it at Carrow Road in 1997.  It''s no coincidence that these organisations were at their most active when football violence was at its height and the police looked the other way.  They have gone underground but they still exist. That''s why zero tolerance is the right approach. One of the few unpleasant aspects of living in the east end was the presence of the National Front (most of whom lived in Kent or Essex) peddling their beliefs at the top of Brick Lane every Sunday morning under the guise of free speech.  Someone daubed "Kill Paki NF" in large letters on the wall in our street, so we got a ladder and a pot of paint and went to cover it up.  The police came and arrested my housemate for criminal damage.  I promise that''s true.  Nowadays the council employs someone to do what we did.  Call it political correctness if you like, but it''s progress as far as I''m concerned.     

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="mystic megson"] I''m not quite sure what he means by "Last year with the workload laid on the first team we didn''t really have enough players to fulfil the fixtures and with the teams we were fielding we sometimes wondered if it was a worthwhile exercise".[/quote] I guess that the reserve squad was depleted as players were called up into the first team squad, resulting in the reserve squad being just as unsettled as the first team was. [quote] He appears to be talking about reserve team football in general not just the Pontins, judging by his comments about Arsenal. Overall, he seems to be saying that "relegation" to the Pontins is not necessarily a bad thing.  His comments are in marked contrast to Neil Doncaster''s hissy fit on the same subject.  Very interesting.[/quote] I guess Neil D thinks more about bums on seats than getting a team together to play.  I would imagine that the club were making a loss on reserve matches in the premiership reserve league, let alone the Pontins. [/quote] blah, Neil D thinks ONLY about bums on seats.  It sums up what''s wrong with our club.  Finance first second and third, football nowhere. I''ve no idea whether we''re making a loss on reserve games, but Neil D''s comments certainly haven''t helped to bring people in.  A pity, because Monday night''s game was the best advertisement for reserve team football I''ve ever seen.  

I''m not quite sure what he means by "Last year with the workload laid on the first team we didn''t really have enough players to fulfil the fixtures and with the teams we were fielding we sometimes wondered if it was a worthwhile exercise". He appears to be talking about reserve team football in general not just the Pontins, judging by his comments about Arsenal. Overall, he seems to be saying that "relegation" to the Pontins is not necessarily a bad thing.  His comments are in marked contrast to Neil Doncaster''s hissy fit on the same subject.  Very interesting.

According to Anglia News tonight he''s "expected to be fit".

[quote user="blahblahblah"] [quote]With such a small squad and a limit on the number of loans, his choice of loan players will be dictated to some extent by who happens to be available when someone gets injured.[/quote] If I may turn the situation around slightly, how do add significantly to your squad when you know that you can only keep 11 players fully match-fit with 80 / 90 minutes per game on the pitch ?  We could pack the squad with cover for all positions, but those players who don''t make the first team will have only one game per fortnight to play against league 1 and 2 reserve teams.  I feel that our current squad depth has been significantly effected by our move into the Pontins reserve league, which has effectively turned our reserve team into an under 20s team.  It may also be the reason that we didn''t sign Clive Clarke (who wasn''t guaranteed first team football, could have taken one look at the fixture list, seen Stevenage Borough reserves and thought better of it), and another reason for McKenzie to leave (reserve football being the only way he could retain match fitness). [/quote] Cheers blah.  But if I may turn it round again, I don''t understand how the Pontins reserve league "has effectively turned our reserve team into an under-20s team".  None of the other clubs in this league have put out a team made up entirely of 17 and 18 year olds.  It''s because we can''t risk injury to the few senior players who are not first team regulars.  Do you think they really care which reserve league they''re in, if they''re not in the first team?  Utter tosh, with all due respect. Nice try mate, keep on defending the indefensible. 

With such a small squad and a limit on the number of loans, his choice of loan players will be dictated to some extent by who happens to be available when someone gets injured.  There may be quite a number of good Premiership squad players available soon, but what does he do?  Strike while the iron''s hot, and then get injuries in other positions and be unable to get cover?  Or wait until we need them, by which time they will have gone elsewhere? Rock, hard place.  Luck, pushing.  Not ideal to say the least.

"Rob Ullathorne''s back pass?"  (or, on the same theme) "Gunny . . . NOOOOOOOOOOO!"

In fairness, I''m not sure they knew straight away that Joe Lewis had a fractured cheekbone.  He had a lot of treatment during the game but was able to carry on. As to the wider point of lack of cover, all I want to know is . . . WHY??  No one in their right mind thinks our squad is big enough to compete over 50 or more games, even without any major injury problems.  I can''t avoid a sinking feeling that there must have been a gigantic financial cockup somewhere, and something is seriously wrong.  I sincerely hope I''m overreacting.

[quote user="Marty"][quote user="mystic megson"] [quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]Well, that''s put me in my place, Sheded along with your true blood friend ''Two Sheds.'' How can I argue against a pair of woad wearing, Anglo Saxon card carrying, pure blood Englishmen who have been personally traumatised by lawless ethnic hordes in your former lives. I know, I''ll get so offended by extreemists I''ll brand anyone who looks like them as being like them, after all, they''re all the same, aren''t they. And if I go to a football match with any members of my family I have to respect the rights of any individual who wants to become intoxicated, position themselves near me and bellow out their boozy predjudices, it''s all right, it''s a football ground. Let the kids hear the language and afterwards they can ask you all about it. Perhaps it''s best I don''t go then! I wonder how many others might take the same option. One loud individual spouting his views in....and a few family groups out. And if we don''t like it, why resort to the law? Sort it out ourselves, the law is wrong anyway, let''s have a fight. Time I left, I think, so the Shed set can heve this debate all to themselves.[/quote] A classic Rude Old/Linda post.   Welcome back, I''d begun to wonder if exploring the outer limits of gender identity was more interesting than football? Leaving aside the moral aspect for a minute, there are certain things you''re not allowed to do in a football ground.  For instance, I feel quite strongly that I should have the right to stand up provided I''m not blocking anyone''s view, and I know what will happen if I do.  If I refuse to sit down I will be asked to leave, and if I object I will be forcibly removed.  If I get really mouthy and threatening, I could be banned.  I don''t agree with it but that''s the way it is.  I''ve got two choices. Everyone knows by now that racist remarks or behaviour at a football match will not be tolerated.  This bloke probably thought he could get away with it.  He didn''t and he has to take the consequences. [/quote]   Not sure what you''re getting at here, are you saying that you think you should be able to stand up and block people''s view for 90 mins as well as hurl racists and non-racist abuse at people because you are at a football game? can''t agree with that. [/quote] No Marty, just trying take this thread back to its starting point, ie. what should happen to Mr Rennie.  Racist abuse is harmful imo, but standing up in the back row of the Barclay isn''t.  Both, however, are prohibited in a football ground.  Both have consequences that can include a ban.  Whether I or anyone else agrees with that or not is irrelevant.  Anyone who steps over the mark in either instance has to take the consequences.

[quote user="Rudolph Hucker"]Well, that''s put me in my place, Sheded along with your true blood friend ''Two Sheds.'' How can I argue against a pair of woad wearing, Anglo Saxon card carrying, pure blood Englishmen who have been personally traumatised by lawless ethnic hordes in your former lives. I know, I''ll get so offended by extreemists I''ll brand anyone who looks like them as being like them, after all, they''re all the same, aren''t they. And if I go to a football match with any members of my family I have to respect the rights of any individual who wants to become intoxicated, position themselves near me and bellow out their boozy predjudices, it''s all right, it''s a football ground. Let the kids hear the language and afterwards they can ask you all about it. Perhaps it''s best I don''t go then! I wonder how many others might take the same option. One loud individual spouting his views in....and a few family groups out. And if we don''t like it, why resort to the law? Sort it out ourselves, the law is wrong anyway, let''s have a fight. Time I left, I think, so the Shed set can heve this debate all to themselves.[/quote] A classic Rude Old/Linda post.   Welcome back, I''d begun to wonder if exploring the outer limits of gender identity was more interesting than football? Leaving aside the moral aspect for a minute, there are certain things you''re not allowed to do in a football ground.  For instance, I feel quite strongly that I should have the right to stand up provided I''m not blocking anyone''s view, and I know what will happen if I do.  If I refuse to sit down I will be asked to leave, and if I object I will be forcibly removed.  If I get really mouthy and threatening, I could be banned.  I don''t agree with it but that''s the way it is.  I''ve got two choices. Everyone knows by now that racist remarks or behaviour at a football match will not be tolerated.  This bloke probably thought he could get away with it.  He didn''t and he has to take the consequences.

[quote user="TwoSheds"] Read this & then think long & hard! Goodbye to my England, So long my old friend, Your days they are numbered, been brought to an end. To be Scottish or Irish, or Welsh is just fine, But don’t say you’re English, that’s way out of line. The French and the Germans, May call themselves such, As may the Norwegians, the Swedes and the Dutch. You can say you are Russian, or maybe a Dane, But don’t say you’re English, not ever again. At Broadcasting House, This word is taboo, In Brussels they have scrapped it, in Parliament too. Even schools are affected, staff do as they’re told, “You must not teach the English, about the England of old”. Writers like Shakespeare, Milton and Shaw, Don’t pupils learn about these anymore? Hastings and Agincourt, Arnhen or mons, Where England lost many of her very brave sons We are not Europeans, How on earth can we be? Europe is miles away over the sea We are English, from England, so let’s all be proud And stand up and be counted and shout it out loud. Let’s tell our government, tell the suits in Brussels too We are proud of our heritage, the red white and blue. Fly the flag of St George, or the Union Jack Tell all of the world, we want our own country back. [/quote] Food for thought Two Sheds, as you say. If you''re making the point that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own assembly or parliament and their own national anthem while "English" gets lumped in with "British", I heartily agree with you.  It pains me to hear "God Save the Queen" at England games.  It''s a British anthem, and should be kept for British teams.   There''s a line in your poem that sums up the confusion: "Fly the flag of St George, OR the Union Jack".  No! They''re not interchangeable. Even English nationalists can''t get it right! 2007 marks the 300th anniversary of the Union.  What better time to have a debate about it?  Why should England pay the price for shoring up an outdated institution?  It''s time to abolish the Union and have separate self-determining countries imo.

[quote user="sheded"] [quote user="Web Team - Pete"]Just to support Graham''s message, someone was ejected from the Lower Barclay a few years ago against Bradford for a racist remark and was subsequently banned from Carrow Road for three seasons so maybe this length is the norm?[/quote] Can`t get the link to work  Pete , so can`t comment on that particular case  ,  even so , I think a three season ban   is just way over the top !    The man involved in the case in question , Rennie ,  was hustled out of the ground by the police , which has to be a humiliating experience  , questioned in a police station ,  and , subsequently  is brought before a magistrates court  , which fined him  near £500  !   ....... all this  for  a " racist "   remark , made in the heat of the moment , by someone that  has , probably , had a few jars !    The remark wasn`t heard by Etuhu   ,  but even if it was , I suspect he would just have laughed it off ,     the po- faced  accuser   needs to get a life ,  he`s at a football match  for crisake !   the thought that  this  nerk is monitoring  every single  boozy shout  for racist  content  , makes my flesh creep !    Rennie is out  some £500 , he`s  had enough  [ thanks to the smug McKechnie ]   , he`s been found to have good character  ,   the reasonable thing for the club to do  is just ignore  this single incident  .....  NO ban  applied !  [/quote] Sheded you''re remarkably naive for someone from a so-called "tough" estate in Nottingham.  Your inner city chauvinism doesn''t impress me at all.  Apart from anything else, you''re way out of date.  Judging by the changes in attitude and behaviour that took place in the east end of London while I was living there (1986-2000), I think you''d find that things are radically different now.  The days when people used words like n***er as everyday currency are long gone.  No one uses that sort of language now now unless they have racist sympathies.  They know exactly what they''re doing. Whilst I think that a life ban is too extreme, there is such a thing as zero tolerance.  Nip it in the bud now or it will grow.  Do we really want to go back to the 1970s?  We''re way ahead of most other countries in tackling racism, and that''s the way it should stay imo.  

If our lads needed firing up for Saturday, that should do it nicely. I wonder how long the bullet wound in Leon''s foot will take to heal . . .?

How on earth did we get a point from this?  It was hardly our fault if it was men against boys.  Matthieu Louis-Jean was missing from the team sheet and so was Joe Lewis.  Rossi Jarvis was on the bench, one of only three subs.  A lad called Steven Arnold was in goal, who played for the Academy at Reading on Saturday. In marked contrast to last week, when we controlled the game for long periods, Colchester were in charge throughout - except after they took the lead, when they sat back so far that they were halfway up the N&P.  Our boys deserve great credit for getting back into it and equalising twice.     Steven Arnold will never have a busier night than that.  Hesitant at first, and playing behind a different back four to the one on Saturday, he grew in confidence and somehow kept everything out until half time, aided by some truly abysmal finishing.    Colchester took the lead on about 50 minutes with a clever chip over the keeper from about 20 yards, but we persevered until Fisk (I think) accelerated like lightning into the box, so quick that his opponent couldn''t help bringing him down.  Spillane''s penalty, low and hard to the keeper''s right, was exemplary.   Five minutes later, Colchester scored again.  Then we brought on Ross Kelly, an Academy boy who played on Saturday at Reading.  An attacking midfielder, he caught the eye as soon as he came on, and scored from the edge of the box about five minutes later.  What a revelation. I felt proud of those boys tonight.  They played for each other and worked their socks off.  But what on earth is happening at our club?  Three substitutes, when Colchester - Colchester -  could manage the regulation five?  The season''s only a month old.  Are we even more hard up than Colchester, or are we having a hissy fit at being chucked out of the Prem reserve league and not taking it seriously?  Either way, it''s an appalling message to send out to our Championship rivals.  

This is a bit on the philosophical side for a Monday morning, but Dicky''s post raises the issue of what this message board is for. Some of what appears on here is no better or worse than a pub conversation on a Saturday night.  You could argue that that''s where it belongs, not on a public forum like this. Imo it''s at its best when it passes on hard info to exiled fans,  raises real issues of interest or concern especially ones that haven''t surfaced elsewhere,  offers an alternative to the CR spin machine,  provides an outlet for frustration or elation, and a little bit of comedy.  It''s a fanzine in cyberspace in other words.  It''s at its worst when it becomes repetitious or descends into personal vilification and scapegoating of players, management or other fans.  That includes people who can''t defend their own point of view without calling other posters ignorant or stupid.   How do you see it?  Is it a cyberpub?  An instant fanzine?  A virtual supporters club?  Or . . .?  

Couldn''t agree more, especially as he threatened the fan who remonstrated with him "If you go down to the toilets we''ll be waiting". Yes we''re a family based club, but even if we weren''t it would still be unacceptable.

[quote user="KidCanary"]I know what their doing isnt illegal but does any one here feel that football is becoming more corrupt by the day, there not even being subtle about it now, which in my opinion means some thing has got to give, you cant keep having these blatant flouting of the rules/sportsmanship and expect no consquences, i just wish people would start asking questions of the FA and Premier league, they wont do any thing until such time. [/quote] I agree Kid, they''re taking the piss. I''m sure we can rely on the same people who appointed Sven to sort it out . . .