Webbo118

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Sorry but this thread shows how so many people are watching games with yellow and green glasses on and are actually quite clueless to the actual laws of the game! The foul on Maddison was not cynical at all, it was just clumsy and didn’t warrant any card just a talking to which was done by the ref at the time. As for Watkins foul it was an ankle breaker and deserved the red card and 3 match ban he now gets. Before people slate me for being anti City, I ain’t, what I am is an ex referee who keeps up to date with the laws still. Also, I thought Tim Robinson had a decent game as did his mentor, who is a personal friend of mine who actually taught me and reffed at the top of the game[/quote] Patronising twaddle

[quote user="Webbo118"]I hope you''re looking forward to seeing your ''phone bill!![/quote] Re: 35 calls

I hope you''re looking forward to seeing your ''phone bill!!

I remember him playing against West Ham and giving the late, great Bobby Moore a nightmare for 90 minutes.

[quote user="rock bus"]In the aftermath of Sunday there have been lots of calls for wholesale changes to the side, formation and style of play. Whilst I can appreciate people''s frustration with the result and more importantly performance, it will be essential that Farke remains strong. We can''t have a manager who keeps chopping and changing just in reaction to each result every week. Or one who is immediately susceptible to the moans of us fans. He needs to allow the formation and style to bed in and become second nature to the players. Otherwise the whole turnaround in coaching staff and players will have been a waste of valuable time. For me, I''d just look at straight swaps i.e. Oliveira for Jerome, pinto for wildschutt, and someone for Naismith. Although if we had another option for left back I''d also drop Husband.[/quote] Brilliant! You say no chopping and changing and then suggest the removal of four players?

[quote user="City 2nd"]Alex wrote the following post at 2017-08-09 7:55 PM: Nexus_Canary wrote: paul moy wrote:My view is that he has been told that he will start the Sunderland game and that we don''t want to risk him tonight. That''s technically what I meant yet some have to be pedantic Well done to those such as Nexus that looked down their nose at my concerns over last nights omission of the best striker we''ve had at Carrow Rd in years. It really wasn''t rocket science. Not looking so f***ing clever today, are you? Really. The best striker we''ve had at Carrow Road in years? You quite obviously haven''t been watching City too long. He is nowhere near as good as several we have had, like Davies, Ashman, Bryceland, McDougall, Boyer, Curran and Ashton to name a few, yet alone Jerome! Funny how he hadn''t stayed at too many English Clubs either for too long, and was continually overlooked by his home club in Benfica. And there are reasons for that!![/quote] Ron Ashman was, for the most part, a left back. Tommy Bryceland was a small inside forward (attacking midfielder).

[quote user="daly"]He was seen enjoying his birthday at Funky''s with all the other spoilt brats[/quote] It was agreed that he could have the day off several weeks ago!

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I''ve asked this before. I''ve seen it mentioned that Jed''s dad was once on our books. I don''t remember him. Was he a keeper too?[/quote]This is all I can find nutty from Flown from the Nest........"Jeremy Steer was selected for the England Schools Under 18 clash with Wales in April 1981 whilst on Norwich''s books. A pupil of Diss High School, he was a regular in the Norfolk County Schools FA side. After playing for Lowestoft and Gorleston, he currently runs an estate agents in North Elmham after having run pubs / restaurants in Norwich, His son is promising goalkeeper Jed Steer."[/quote] I played with Jeremy Steer at Diss Town. He was primarily a ball-playing centre back.

[quote user="te94"]Oliviera Watkins Vrancic Reed Husband Wildschut Tettey Franke Zimmerman Gunn[/quote] Wouldn''t we stand a better chance if we started with 11 players?

[quote user="nat_canaries"]as much as i love the thought of swarms of yellow and green getting the train from the waste dump, most of the villages from dereham to thetford have an ip post code so i would imagine the vast majority of them come from there.[/quote] Harleston, Diss, Watton, Thetford. What''s coming next? Supporters from the PE post code?

[quote user="hogesar"]I like Maddison but it''s reasonably clear he''s behind pritchard and wes in terms of ability and understanding of the game[/quote] Is it reasonably clear?

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]The BBC is competing with other commercial broadcasters for presenting talent. Therefore they have to offer similar figures to what Sky, ITV are offering. Just because the BBC is funded by taxpayers, doesn''t mean they don''t have to be run like any other broadcaster.[/quote] How do you know what Sky and ITV are offering and why are all these people (not just broadcasters) so keen to stay with the BBC? Clue - choo, choo and something northern boys love!

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]If the BBC phoned you and offered you an extortionate salary would you accept it Lakey? Of course you would. Might need a ladder to get down from your moral high ground.[/quote]I applied for a job with the BBC once, it was a fair salary for a fair job (I didn''t get it). That is what anyone should get - a fair salary for a fair job. That should apply across the BBC. It doesn''t and the anachronism of the Lineker salary shows it at it''s worst - male executives throwing money at a sport because they can, in some kind false belief that throwing money at it is what is needed. The Lineker salary is just part of the inequality and wrong thinking in the BBC which is still there. They are apparently working on it, we are told, but still have a long way to go. [/quote] They are working on it because Theresa (God bless her) said that there aren''t any magic money trees. We all know that is a lie and, for some reason, they have suddenly cottoned on to the fact that the BBC is another one. They have realised that something needs to be done about it with austerity and all that.

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]If the BBC phoned you and offered you an extortionate salary would you accept it Lakey? Of course you would. Might need a ladder to get down from your moral high ground.[/quote] And why shouldn''t he. John Humphrys can''t believe what he gets paid and says it is crazy. But he takes it every month as anyone would. Doesn''t stop him and everyone else with a conscience admitting it''s wrong.

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]TV Licence also goes towards setting up the infrastructure of broadcasting though. The switch over to Digital Broadcasting came out of the Licence Fee money, and a proportion of it is also used in the roll out of Broadband across the country. While I understand the arguments against the BBC I feel it is better to have the Licence Fee than not have it. I would hate a situation like that of the USA to arise in the UK, where every news channel is a commercial enterprise that alters its broadcasts to reflect the need to make money. Perhaps the licence fee should be scrapped and everyone charged a little more income tax or something, so people don''t associate it so directly with the BBC. The news being directly state funded opens all kinds of impartiality issues, so a separate, non-government funding system is still preferable in my mind.[/quote] I personally have no problem with the licence fee and would even be prepared to pay a bit more. What I do have a problem with is the inefficient and crass way that our money is spent. As I have already said, the BBC is a massive gravy train for those who have managed to get on board.

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="king canary"]Let''s say the BBC got rid of Lineker and replaced him with someone on £30k a year. Even if you passed that saving on directly to every license fee payer you might get about 2p off each. Exciting.[/quote] Not quite, it is around 7p, but even if it is 2p and if everyone who got that 2p back (25,000,000 licence holders) put it into a charity, it would amount to £500,000. If it''s 7p (and if my maths are correct) that amounts to £1,750,000.It''s our money and they are accountable. [/quote] Or it could even be spent on slightly more expensive tower block insulation that doesn''t burst into flames.

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="ncfcstar"]I''ve no idea what you are basing your justification on Lakey, and I would imagine BBC bosses are far more informed than you. This is a witch hunt with zero relativity to anyone on this board IMO.[/quote] BBC bosses are responsible for spending the money we pay into their coffers - and we pay their salaries by the way - so as members of the public have every right to question them. They are in charge of a salaried system thay is weighted heavily in favour of men and whoever decides what happens with sports presenters in particular, has a responsibility to not spend more than is necessary to make sure a product is presented well. I would say that 1.8 million is too much and that the other presenters that sometimes take over are just as good if not better. [/quote] I find myself in the rather strange and unusual position of agreeing with LDC. The BBC is a wonderful service and provides excellence in many areas. However, it is and always has been a massive gravy train. It is effectively one of Theresa''s magic money trees with just about everyone contributing to it. As well as the 100+ celebrities "earning" vasts sums of money, there are another 100 executives, employed by the BBC, who receive more than the Prime Minister. Can this be justified? It is easy to say it is only 39p per week so what does it matter? However, when 39p per week is multiplied by X million people it becomes a vast amount of money and there is a responsibility for it to be used wisely and fairly. Could a percentage of these funds be directed to rather more deserving causes? The BBC also recognises that it has a massive problem with the gender pay gap? Does it really matter that a male presenter gets £400K per year whilst his female colleague doing the same job gets half of this? I know what I think.

[quote user="Van wink"]"No. I am able to confirm that I have neither of those jobs. I have grown used to the reality of the vast majority of the population of our country living their lives in blissful ignorance on a whole range of issues. Not being rude but I have to say that you are a typical example" How do you mean Webbo[/quote] Proves my point.

[quote user="Van wink"]Salaries of the top bods are publicly available, have been for ages, do you seriously believe that applies to all public employees?[/quote] It applies to me and countless other people I know. The thing is, who would be interested in me?

[quote user="simmo_2"]What is the point of the academy if this is going to happen. Similar to 1st team, we will just be left with the dross.[/quote] I have seen him play a few times and it is my opinion (for what it''s worth) that he is a long way from a first team place.

[quote user="Van wink"]Does that boy apply to the top jobs like local government CEO''s and NHS board members etc Webbo[/quote] No. I am able to confirm that I have neither of those jobs. I have grown used to the reality of the vast majority of the population of our country living their lives in blissful ignorance on a whole range of issues. Not being rude but I have to say that you are a typical example.

[quote user="Van wink"]Erm let''s disregard the melodramatics here, my view is that public sector employees salaries should be a matter between them and their employer, as should private sector empires salaries.[/quote] That is your view and it well may be my view. All I am trying to do is acquaint you with the real world. I know what happens because I have experienced it for the last nine years. My earnings are published for all to see for transparency reasons. Not melodramatics but fact.

[quote user="Van wink"]keelansgrandad wrote the following post at 20/07/2017 10:15 PM: Why should BBC employees have their salaries broadcast across the airways ? Does tht happen in other organisations. Shocking Because they have to rely on their funding from Parliamentarians who have to declare theirs. Seems fair. Ok, so if you work in the "public sector" everyone has the right to know what you earn but in the private sector you can keep it secret🤔[/quote] The massive sound of a penny dropping. Got it in one.

[quote user="Van wink"]Why should BBC employees have their salaries broadcast across the airways ? Does tht happen in other organisations. Shocking[/quote] Too bloody right it does. If you''re interested, you can easily find out what I earn as it has to be put on a website for anyone to read. Public money and transparency. About time you dragged yourself into the real world mate!

[quote user="Yellow Wal"]Webbo - Surely the point being made was the obscenity of the salary received, not who paid it?[/quote] Both. It makes it even worse if it is public money.