LeJuge

[quote user="Mrs Tierney"]LeJuge I''ve agreed with most of your points on here and was pretty gobsmacked when you came out with that in reply to my post. in no way have a I ever criticised McNamee for anything from his footballing ability to his fitness. I was merely posting a link in a thread based on him. I actually rated McNamee, all he lacked was consistency and maybe could be a bit more direct IMO. and now your speculating about my social status? assuming something about me that you''d like to believe so you think your superior to me. I''m a 16 year old Norwich fan and of course I''m going to have a little look at McNamee''s facebook as he''s a professional footballer which I look up to and am interested in finding out more about our players. why do you think footballers have so many followers on twitter? because people are interested in their personal lives as fans. so I guess looking at Rio Ferdinand''s twitter is stalking him and being nosey. McNamee accepts all friend requests so if he didn''t want me looking at anything on his facebook he wouldn''t accept fans. you give me a paragraph criticising me, I''ll give one back. I stick up for the guy above with his name in Asian. he was only saying that he may be more interested in music atm, he wasn''t going into a rant about what he should or shouldn''t be doing. and in fact I have 900 friends on facebook all of which I know from childhood up until the end of high school. so stop being arrogant and find out a little bit more about peopls before assuming they are something they''re not.[/quote]"I''ve agreed with most of your points on here"If you agree with most of my posts on here, assuming you mean this thread, then you wouldn''t be posting pictures of McNamees belly... because I''m telling people to get off of his back. If you mean on the Pink Un general, then so what? You can agree with my posts on one thread and not on another, we don''t have to pick people to cling to, I even agree with Smudger occassionally. It makes sense that you are 16. When I was 16 the media and the public in general had a lot more respect for those with minor celebrity status, we live in the days of phone hacking, facebook being used routinely as a spying tool, the likes of Perez Hilton, and upskirt shots. Commenting on somebodies physical appearance reminds me precisely of that, the diet and looks obsessed material world of celebrity magazines."Why do you think footballers have so many followers on twitter?"In order to reply to this, I had a little search for McNamee on Facebook. First time I have ever searched for a footballer on there. It turns out that his profile is private. Twitter on the other hand is not private. If he has choosen not to allow the entire web on his facebook profile, then he doesn''t want his personal stuff shared to the world, and one would assume that includes photos. "I guess looking at Rio Ferdinand''s twitter is stalking him and being nosey"No, because Twitter does not have privacy options. You have been accepted as McNamees friend, and then breached trust, by posting private stuff publicly. People can choose to make their fb stuff visible to the WHOLE world, or to a limited group of people. He has choosen to make it public to a limited group of people, including you. To be precise, you are allowed a maximum of 5000 followers on fb. It''s nice that he allowed a young kid access, it says a lot about the man. It says a lot about the young kid if he starts sharing his images to the world. The 17 year old is only a year older than you, again, it says a lot about the man.

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]I think they have gone about it like Bolton, although now they have hit a point where they can''t really go much further, as pretty much every club can''t, we are basically all challenging for 7th spot. I''d be interested to see a league not including them and then look at Stokes record vs the top teams. For me, they would be lower down the league if it weren''t for the top 6, as they manage to ''Bully'' a few points from them. They are not better than us other 13 clubs, but credit to them for it to be honest, the Premiership is not won on how many maradona turns or rabonas you can do. I think they hare midway through a kind of second phase of their plan anyway, where to move on from being some ugly team that just survives. Players like Pennant and Ethrington are real good footballers, like they tried with getting Tuncay. Presume the end product of their plan will be an attractive self sufficient style of football that will get them a top half finish and a good cup run or 2 while they queue for a top 6 spot. I think coming out of the championship, it''s hard to maintain attractive but effective football. We are definately coming out of there the hard way, but we have invested in pace and physical strength to help us succeed in the premiership. Players like Holt, Barnett and Morison will be the key physically, where as Naughton, Martin, Tierney, Pilkington and Bennet will be for pace and stamina. The rest of the team can do the pretty stuff.[/quote]I doubt anybody is claiming that Stoke are better than 13 teams in the league, you do realise that Stoke qualified for Europe because they reached the FA cup final and not because they finished 7th? They finished 13th.I think they deserve all credit though, they got to the FA cup final, it''s a knockout competition and there is no playing for 0-0 in those you have to score the goals which win you the games. They fully deserve a brief foray into Europe as a result, will do wonders for their coffers!

[quote user="Mrs Tierney"]don''t know if this link will work but he seems to of let himself go a bit over the summer http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=152190921521050&set=a.152190508187758.38971.100001904303063&type=1&pid=339446&id=100001904303063[/quote]Blimey he really does have stalkers, don''t you have actual friends to stalk on Facebook? You know, people that you have met in the real world?Firstly you have no idea when that picture was taken, and secondly if it was taken on the upload date then that is a whole 2 weeks before pre-season training started. I should imagine that most footballers ''let themselves go a bit'' over summer, half of our squad went on a big five night p*ss up in Las Vegas, I doubt they would have been seen doing 6am jogs up the Vegas strip. Frankly I can''t believe that I am having to stick up for McNamee here. He isn''t good enough for us now, but he has played a role in two successive promotions, a key role in the first one. Why do people turn on our players like this? It''s like a lynch mob finding witches to burn at the stake. What player will be placed under scrutiny of keyboard warriors next week?As far as I am concerned he has a contract here and is entitled to sit it out if he wants to, just like he is entitled to live life like a real human being in the summer break. Nobody has any reason whatsoever to think any less of McNamee, he is entitled to do whatever he wants in his private life as long as it fits within the terms of his employment. I doubt Lambert could give two hoots if the players had a bit of fun this summer, they all deserved it in my opinion. I personally like to think that Grant Holt got absolutely bladdered a few times, ate a couple of big juicy doner kebabs, and woke up in a field somewhere in somebody elses clothes... every fun loving person has to let it go sometimes!

[quote user="canary_bird"][quote user="Chelmsford Canary"]"Everyone knows I''ve followed West Ham all my life but I''ve always had a soft spot for QPR," said Fernandes, who is also team principal of Formula 1''s Team Lotus. "Rangers were one of the first teams I watched as a child at Loftus Road." He''s gone down in my estimation, after this comment - what a load of 8ollox[/quote] How convenient ... (i.e. make up the facts to fit the situation)[/quote]8ollox it may be, but he is hardly going to take them over and say "I didn''t really want to buy, but one of your local rivals rejected me, I''ll stay until the chance to buy them comes up again"!

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="LeJuge"] he was seen waving a bottle[/quote] He was charged with violent disorder for heavens sake.You will be saying next that anybody charged with burglary was found wandering around inside a shop that was closed for business. [/quote]"The teenager was allegedly caught on CCTV in the throng and wielding a bottle, it was heard."If that constitutes violent disorder then so be it, but his alleged offence is still holding a bottle. With the facist state jailing somebody for 6 months for the theft of a bottle of water, and with people being arrested for arranging a super soaker fight in Essex, it won''t be long until we all get arrested for breathing or leaving the house.That crime still differs substantially from the four listed above, so your point is mute anyway. It won''t be long until almost every kid in the country has a criminal record at this rate, this won''t be the last of the riots.

[quote user="Norfolk Mustard"]Some think McNamnee doing is somehow doing a ''good deed''? I don''t agree. The lad our footballer is harbouring is an alledged thug. Let him stand trial and if proven guilty take his punishment - just like all the rest of the disruptive little s**** who were just waiting for an excuse to behave like they did. Yes, MacNamee can have who he wants in his house; but Norwich fans are paying for it. Unlike the lad who appears to be somewhat averse to paying for things he took a fancy to. Allegedly. [/quote]"Let him stand trial and if proven guilty take his punishment."It would be a good idea if you learnt a little about the law of your own land before smacking the keyboard in ill judged anger. To be more specific, you need to learn what BAIL means. It is what happens before a trial, nobody is stopping him from standing trial. If he was to be locked up pre-trial then any time on remand would be deducted from his sentence, bail is PREFERRED where possible, because it keeps space free for those who are SENTENCED during their TRIAL.

[quote user="Norfolk Mustard"]Some think McNamnee doing is somehow doing a ''good deed''? I don''t agree. The lad our footballer is harbouring is an alledged thug. Let him stand trial and if proven guilty take his punishment - just like all the rest of the disruptive little s**** who were just waiting for an excuse to behave like they did. Yes, MacNamee can have who he wants in his house; but Norwich fans are paying for it. Unlike the lad who appears to be somewhat averse to paying for things he took a fancy to. Allegedly.  [/quote] FFS, there are some idiots on here. He is not alleged to have taken anything without paying for it, as the link shows, it is fools like you making sweeping statements which make Archant and other media outlets afraid of libel threats. Only it would be you that would ultimately be held responsible pal, so watch your tongue, hey?

[quote user="Joanna Grey"][quote user="NWC"]Agreed LeJugeWhy is this such a bad thing???Good on him for trying to be a bit benevolent.What was the last good deed you lot did???[/quote] Good deed? Whoopee-frakkin-do, the majority of us on here do ''good deeds'' by just going about our business without burning, looting, raping and mugging. It''s not some poor, starving orphan he has taken in but an (alleged) crim. [/quote]Well done, you have just gone and got the thread deleted by mentioning a variety of crimes that this youth is not accused of. In fact, he isn''t accused of ANY of those crimes, he was seen waving a bottle, it doesn''t fall into any of ''burning'', ''looting'', ''raping'', or ''mugging'', you absolutely tool.

[quote user="morty"](Apologies to Robin for nicking this off Facebook)Sooooo, he didn''t want to buy Norwich as he would only ever be involved with his beloved Wet Spam, and up he pops buying QPR.Have we had a lucky escape there? All sounds a bit two faced and fickle to me.[/quote]Doesn''t really sound fickle to me, he tried to buy West Ham twice. Once before the Norwich rumours, and once after. He was clearly very interested in West Ham, and was ready to bid again. He turned down the chance to invest in us after the first failed bid, but before the second. I''m not sure why we are all so surprised anyway, London clubs always get more attention from prospective buyers, you won''t find any near-billionaires living in the middle of Sheffield or some grim former mining town up north!

[quote user="Joanna Grey"]Let us hope that he finds a new club quickly so he can move on and take the little (alleged) thug with him.[/quote]Maybe he just wants to give him a second chance?Craig Bellamy once took in an old school friend who has a heroin addict to try and get him clean, Kevin Nolan took in a roque Andy Carroll, and we are currently housing a (alleged) rapist (see what I have done there?) in one of Norfolk''s fine country homes. No uproar there? It makes me laugh to see people judge others like this, it''s McNamee''s home, not your home... he can have whoever he wants in there.

[quote user="諾維奇城"]I get the impression AM is more interested in his music than football at the moment by looking at his facebook page...[/quote]Lot''s of people have interests away from their day job, otherwise what kind of life would we all be living? They are footballers, not catholic priests! We can assume that your interest out of work is searching for people that you don''t know on Facebook? Are you more interested in facebook than your job by any chance?

[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="smiley"] dani37pacheco Daniel Pacheco Im at home (málaga) waiting news on my future, and everything should be done THIS week, and will know it very soon. So unlucky at world cup!Looks like he''s moving away from Liverpool, if it was us then he certainly wouldn''t be in Malaga would he? [/quote]He will be in Malaga because he has played in the U20 world cup, would of thought he''d get a week after that. When people play in the grown ups World Cup they normally return to training 10-14 days later than those who didn''t go. Although one would assume that he wouldn''t rule out a move to Malaga FC! I suspect his whole family are Malaga fans, and they are no lightweights either, they have signed Ruud Van Nistlerooy this summer, having signed Julio Baptista, Enzo Maresca, and Willy Cabellero last January!They have got Toulalan and Joaquin too, so one would assume that they have a fair bit of money to throw about these days! [/quote]   Wow, thats some midfield! I guess Valencia have made a real loss on Joaquin! [/quote]Yes big loss, just looking at Wiki, they paid 4 million euros for him. Looks like they also have Demichelis at the back (Arge International). Must have some money from somewhere, because they spent years as a yo-yo team with no recognisable names![/quote]For some reason this thread made me think about Ian Harte, it was a big shock when he moved to Levante after being a key player at Leeds. I''ve just seen the strangest Wiki sentence in history on his page:Harte was part of a defence that shut out his old team Leeds United at Elland Road. Alex McCarthy, the Reading goalkeeper was named man of the match because he kept the score at 0–0, the game finished 0–0 between Leeds and Reading, Harte helped to keep a clean sheet. THAT is why you should never quote Wiki :)

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="smiley"] dani37pacheco Daniel Pacheco Im at home (málaga) waiting news on my future, and everything should be done THIS week, and will know it very soon. So unlucky at world cup!Looks like he''s moving away from Liverpool, if it was us then he certainly wouldn''t be in Malaga would he? [/quote]He will be in Malaga because he has played in the U20 world cup, would of thought he''d get a week after that. When people play in the grown ups World Cup they normally return to training 10-14 days later than those who didn''t go. Although one would assume that he wouldn''t rule out a move to Malaga FC! I suspect his whole family are Malaga fans, and they are no lightweights either, they have signed Ruud Van Nistlerooy this summer, having signed Julio Baptista, Enzo Maresca, and Willy Cabellero last January!They have got Toulalan and Joaquin too, so one would assume that they have a fair bit of money to throw about these days! [/quote]   Wow, thats some midfield! I guess Valencia have made a real loss on Joaquin! [/quote]Yes big loss, just looking at Wiki, they paid 4 million euros for him. Looks like they also have Demichelis at the back (Arge International). Must have some money from somewhere, because they spent years as a yo-yo team with no recognisable names!

[quote user="smiley"] dani37pacheco Daniel Pacheco Im at home (málaga) waiting news on my future, and everything should be done THIS week, and will know it very soon. So unlucky at world cup!Looks like he''s moving away from Liverpool, if it was us then he certainly wouldn''t be in Malaga would he? [/quote]He will be in Malaga because he has played in the U20 world cup, would of thought he''d get a week after that. When people play in the grown ups World Cup they normally return to training 10-14 days later than those who didn''t go. Although one would assume that he wouldn''t rule out a move to Malaga FC! I suspect his whole family are Malaga fans, and they are no lightweights either, they have signed Ruud Van Nistlerooy this summer, having signed Julio Baptista, Enzo Maresca, and Willy Cabellero last January!They have got Toulalan and Joaquin too, so one would assume that they have a fair bit of money to throw about these days!

[quote user="Gareth"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="LeJuge"] Like I said, no room for sentiments in this division. It doesn''t matter who you are or who you play for, Rio Ferdinand would get a game on the bench if he had an absolute stinker. [/quote]Nonsense. Alex Ferguson has not become the most sucessful manager in the history of English football by dropping world class players on the basis of one poor game. Now Russell Martin is no Rio Ferdinand but if he was first choice four days ago I would be amazed if he was dropped on the basis of ninety minutes of football against one very quick winger. Now one thing that has helped Lord Purple Nose become so sucessful is a settled defence. You''ll get nowhere by chopping and changing your defence every five minutes.[/quote]All of the big four make regular changes. As for Ferdinand, hard to know, he has only managed half a season for the last three years. There is no way that Lambert will play the same back five, I''ll put a fiver on it. Putting Ferguson out of the equation, Lambert has NEVER shirked from changing the team when things don''t go right. We have a player who Tottenham turned down £4m for sitting there waiting for his chance, it doesn''t matter whether it took 15 games for him to get his chance or 1 game. If he doesn''t change the line up at the back he will at least change the formation. I think Chicken may have hit the nail on the head, Martin was left exposed by the diamond. Maybe it was Lamberts mistake, we weren''t doubling up on Moses, maybe we need to play 4-4-2 in this division with Martin playing less of a Cafu role and more of a Gary Neville role. I''ll trust Lambert no matter what, but would be surprised not to see him try a new formation on Sunday. Ferguson does chop and change his defence by the way, all the time. He won''t have any choice no with Vidic and Ferdinand out, but people like O''Shea, Brown and Jonny Evans, as well as Fabio and Rafeal, were getting a lot of football last year nonetheless. He has a big squad, and uses it. [/quote]Is this the same Garry Neville who was regarded as one of the finest crossers of the ball to ever grace the Premire League and formed an effective attacking partnership with David Beckham?[/quote]If you want to go back almost a decade then yes, the same Gary Neville who played in a 4-4-2 formation with a world class midfielder who was willing to track back and help out with the defending, and gained a reputation as a full back who could overlap a right midfielder and put in a decent cross. The same Gary Neville who always had a right midfielder in front of him for Man Utd and England, who didn''t get forward much after Beckham left and was replaced by Cristiano Ronaldo.As opposed to the games greatest right back of a generation, Cafu, famous for his electric pace and playing his best club football at Roma when they played their innovate 3-4-1-2 formation with no wingers? In which Cafu (part of the ''4'') would effectively serve as a right midfielder and a right back at once? Or in simple terms, was a wing back.Roma Seria A winning team, 2000-2001                                 Montella       Batistuta                                               Totti                                Zanetti            Tomassi            Candela                                                  Cafu                               Samuel            Zebina                                           Aldair                                          Antonioli      Brazil World Cup winning team, 2002                                                  Ronaldo                        Rivaldo                                        Ronaldinho                                        Kleberson                         GilbertoCarlos                                                      Cafu                                 Edmilson                      Lucio                 R Junior                                MarcosSorry to make you look like a complete idiot, well actually I''m not in the slightest, but now perhaps you can tell me what was wrong with my statement: "maybe we need to play 4-4-2 in this division with Martin playing less of a Cafu role and more of a Gary Neville role."And how your statement: "Is this the same Garry Neville who was regarded as one of the finest crossers of the ball to ever grace the Premire League and formed an effective attacking partnership with David Beckham?"Is in any way relevant to my input? Or how Neville''s crossing ability has an relevance whatsoever? Or when Man Utd have played our diamond formation with Gary Neville as a wing back? They haven''t, so jog on.

[quote user="Boris"]0-0 ft norwich hit the post twice and was better team against blackburn youth team.[/quote]Any stand out performances by City players? The type which scream "pick me for the first team", because Lambert will be expecting them to play for their place this year. Did Chris Martin put in a shift? What did Drury look like? And, most importantly, how fit did Ayala look?

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="LeJuge"] Like I said, no room for sentiments in this division. It doesn''t matter who you are or who you play for, Rio Ferdinand would get a game on the bench if he had an absolute stinker. [/quote]Nonsense. Alex Ferguson has not become the most sucessful manager in the history of English football by dropping world class players on the basis of one poor game. Now Russell Martin is no Rio Ferdinand but if he was first choice four days ago I would be amazed if he was dropped on the basis of ninety minutes of football against one very quick winger. Now one thing that has helped Lord Purple Nose become so sucessful is a settled defence. You''ll get nowhere by chopping and changing your defence every five minutes.[/quote]All of the big four make regular changes. As for Ferdinand, hard to know, he has only managed half a season for the last three years. There is no way that Lambert will play the same back five, I''ll put a fiver on it. Putting Ferguson out of the equation, Lambert has NEVER shirked from changing the team when things don''t go right. We have a player who Tottenham turned down £4m for sitting there waiting for his chance, it doesn''t matter whether it took 15 games for him to get his chance or 1 game. If he doesn''t change the line up at the back he will at least change the formation. I think Chicken may have hit the nail on the head, Martin was left exposed by the diamond. Maybe it was Lamberts mistake, we weren''t doubling up on Moses, maybe we need to play 4-4-2 in this division with Martin playing less of a Cafu role and more of a Gary Neville role. I''ll trust Lambert no matter what, but would be surprised not to see him try a new formation on Sunday. Ferguson does chop and change his defence by the way, all the time. He won''t have any choice no with Vidic and Ferdinand out, but people like O''Shea, Brown and Jonny Evans, as well as Fabio and Rafeal, were getting a lot of football last year nonetheless. He has a big squad, and uses it.

[quote user="chicken"]I am going to be a bit controversial here. I think we need to play with more width. We have two big chaps up front, and from the highlights - which are admittedly rather short - it looked like Morrison or Holt were often crossing in to each other. Such as the lead up to our goal. The reason R.Martin had a torrid time is that if teams move the ball quickly the wingers can get plenty of space and time. If a player can get a bit of a run at a player it can be horrid, all they need to do is put the ball beyond them and they have a head start as they are already moving. This happened to Martin a couple of times and he then has to play catch up. A bit crazy but my line up would be: Ruddy R. Martin, Barnett, De Laet, Tierney Naughton, Crofts, Fox, Surman, Hoolahan, Holt I just think it would give us the width and also with Hoolahan in behind Holt would also mean that we would have that bit of skill to draw their defence out of shape. Also one of the big observations was the way their defence likes to play narrow. So if we have two good wide men pulling them about I think space will open up for the likes of Hoolahan and Holt to expose. Pilkington would also be a good option for that right hand birth if he is ready to start. I have gone with Naughton as he is probably more robust as a defender but also has pace and skill.[/quote]You explain the impact on Martin very well there, and put like that I can just imagine the difficulty that he had with Moses, really need to double up on players like that sometimes. The only bit that I disagree with is Naughton playing right midfield. We have right wingers waiting for a chance, Bennett and possibly Pilkington if he is truly ready, If were are going to play a 4-4-2 (I wouldn''t mind tbh, think we will defo see that at some stage this year) then I would like to see Bennett.

[quote user="Lincs CR"]I''d definitely bring Naughton in for Martin. Tierney played fairly well on the left both attacking and defending, so he deserved another shot, as does De Laet because although the attention will be on his error I thought he more than made up for with two outstanding blocks. Whitbread I don''t think will be risked if he has a knock. I do also think we need pace and as hard as it would be to drop Morison I think Jackson''s pace could cause a few problems to what is a very strong but slow stoke team.[/quote]Is Holt that untouchable? Don''t get me wrong, I''ve got Holt down as top scorer for us again, but Morison is said to have had a stellar debut? I think I''d keep the front two the same, with a view to a couple of early 55th/60th minute substitutes. Perhaps bring on a couple of faster players just as Stoke begin to potentially tire a little.

[quote user="JJ"]R.Martin was far too crucial last season to be discounted after one match. I can see a back four of Martin, Barnett, Ayala and Tierney working well. Some silly behaviour on this forum to discount certain players after one match, There is no way to ascertain that information in a nervy first 90 minutes[/quote]Am I the only one to see the irony here? You criticise those who want to see Naughton brought in for the Stoke match after one match, before advocating dropping Whitbread AND DeLaet? Talk about double standards. I personally think that it would be lunacy to drop DeLaet after he recovered from that early error to save our point with no less than THREE crucial blocks near the end. Nobody is writing Martin off, we all know that he is a class act, and it would only take one bad game or a knock to Naugton to see Martin straight back in the team. Lambert didn''t bring Naughton in to play reserve team football, he brought him in to put in the team if Martin doesn''t play well. Well he didn''t play well, he had a stinker, and as such Naughtons chance should come earlier than expected. It would then be up to Naugton to keep his place or Martin to win his place back. Like I said, no room for sentiments in this division.It doesn''t matter who you are or who you play for, Rio Ferdinand would get a game on the bench if he had an absolute stinker. And sorry but every account that I have heard suggests that Martin had a stinker. A change or two is needed at the back for good reason, and its not ability, it''s physcological. Play the same back five and nerves could get the better of us. Would be VERY surprised to see no changes to the eleven.

Surely we have to make a few tweaks to the line up for Sunday? What would you change?We surely can''t put that same back four out? I thought we looked terrible at the back. Albeit I''ve only seen bias highlights, a friend of mine reckons Russell Martin was ripped to shreds. Clearly DeLaet made up for his mistake near to the end. I think we have to see Naughton in for Martin and possibly Ayala in for Whitbread or Barnett? No time for sentiment in the Premier League, bad game and your out. You have to wait for your chance again, which will happen when somebody else has a bad game. But if we put that same back four out, Stoke are just going to play their game through Etherington and will know full well that the back four will be nervous after that. Personally I''ve never liked a Barnett and Whitbread partnership anyway, I''ve always preferred Barnett and Ward or Whitbread and Ward. Hopefully one of the two, or both, will work well with Ayala. Not that the defence is as bad as it looks, we always leave them exposed and go on the offensive, I don''t think we can get away with that as much this year.

And didn''t realise that iPlayer doesn''t show MOTD.....http://www.sportyhub.com/league/wigan-1-1-norwich-city-motd-highlights-premier-league-1382011-video_113498dca.html

Does Lambert seem like the type of bloke to sign a 32 year old striker who was released from Notts County in League 1 this season after just 9 games and 1 goal, whilst he has Grant Holt, Steve Morison, James Vaughan, Simeon Jackson, Chris Martin, Aaron Wilbraham, Oli Johnson, and Cody McDonald on his books? No.

[quote user="Dan Druff"]Further to the comments about the extortionate rates SKY charge pubs for a licence, I spoke to the landlady of a smallish city pub and she said the bastards wanted 15k a year for the privilege to show their product. Ludicrous. As I said earlier, I hope the dirty digger fails in his attempt to stop this alternative broadcasting package. I bet the cnut is messing himself at the moment, the ugly, decrepit fossil.[/quote]I googled and found £1k per month, but I too recall somebody saying that Sky wanted £18k. I suspect it is £12k just for Sky Sports, and of course you need the whole package to get Sky Sports!That is a hell of a lot of money, if your talking about 50 pence profit per drink (not too far out there if your chained to a brewery), you would need to sell 36000 pints EXTRA to justify a Sky package. Unless your Wetherspoons or have an incredible city centre location, just isn''t going to happen. I really do think that a pick ''n'' mix solution is needed. A small local might be able to pay a few grand to pick a selection of games that they believe will pay for themselves, but like I said..... you aren''t going to bother turning it on for Wigan v Fulham on a Monday night.

[quote user="mrbrutler"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="mrbrutler"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="mrbrutler"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="mrbrutler"]No live games on TV at 3pm on Saturday was introduced for a reason....to not harm attendances. People such as the OP ''boasting'' about how they can now watch all NCFC games without even bothring to go to a football ground is disgusting for the game in my book.Forget supporting your local boozer financially, how about supporting your local football club in the same way!The NFL has it spot on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television#Blackout_procedure[/quote]You are aware that Carrow Road isn''t large enough to accommodate everybody who wants a ticket this year? The same can be said for about 15 of the clubs in the Premier League. Maybe I would understand your concern if there were 2000 season tickets up for grabs, but there simply isn''t. Telling somebody without a season ticket to go and buy one is a little like telling somebody to walk on water. To the contrary, the club is probably 2000 season tickets short.I think that those without a ticket still being able to watch games this year is fab, and to be honest I suspect that it will help to create a new generation of fans in Norfolk. The club doesn''t currently have the ability to let kids in cheap, or have promotions to get people through the door to fill seats, so this is the second best thing.I am fortunate in that for me the cost of season ticket renewal is peanuts, but for many others - including many of my own friends - spending £500 for a season ticket and then another £500 on matchday expenses just isn''t viable right now. There are plenty of Norwich fans who simply cannot afford to buy a ST, are you saying that if you aren''t fortunate enough to fit within a certain earnings demographic you are "disgusting"?I know LOADS of old boys, in their seventies etc, who struggle to pay their gas bills each year but can recall countless tails of City games from their youth. Hardship can happen to anybody, no matter how much money you have now. Big difference between spending a fiver in the local on two pints of cheap lager and a packet of crisps and the expense associated with a footy game these days. [/quote]Further to that I can''t see anything wrong with supporting your local boozer. The pub industry is down on its knees, pubs are closing everywhere. You would be well served to remember just how close pubs and football were inter related before the working classes were priced out of games and replaced by a new breed of middle classes celebrating their faux-wealth based on over inflated property valuations and how up to date their iPod is. Pub, bookies, footy. That IS football culture, or at least it WAS. Now it seems to be pilates, quick spot of lunch, pop in Morrisons for a piss, pop and a paper, then down to the ground at 2.15 to make sure your in time for your fancy yellas burger and watered down lager. [/quote]We''re lucky at Norwich - we sell out. So yes, the NFL model of blackout unless you sell-out is perfectably viable for us. You''d be able to enjoy every Norwich home game in your local boozer.This is not the case for at least half of the Prem clubs, they DO NOT sell out every week. So why should people be able to just log on to a moody feed on the web, or pop down to the local pub to watch for free?If you can''t afford a holiday, you don''t go. If you can''t afford to go to the theatre, you don''t see the show. If you can''t afford a car, you get the bus. That is part of life.Approx. £500 is reasonable for a season of Premier League in my book. All this whinging about the "economic climate" is just boring now. People simply want something for nothing.[/quote]It''s a good job that the OP wasn''t talking about any other clubs then, he was talking about this one, and thus nothing that he said was the slightest bit disgusting. If you can''t afford a holiday, you go for a day trip. If you can''t afford to go to the theatre, you go to the cinema. If you can''t afford a car, you get a friend to give you a lift. If you can''t afford to go to the footy, you watch it down the pub. I take it you didn''t watch a single away game online last year then? I bloody did, I watched loads of them. [/quote]Football attendances could and probably will suffer if the 3pm blackout rule isn''t upheld. How can this not be a bad thing?Do you really want to watch NCFC away games online in half empty grounds like Wigan EVERY week?Sure, I feel sorry for people who have lost their jobs and now can''t afford to go etc. But we all know there will be a percantage who chose NOT to  travel to a game because it''s far easier for them to fire up their computer and watch. A massively sad state of affairs in my opinion.[/quote]I''m not saying that there are no negatives, although your Wigan example is a rubbish one, they are getting bigger attendances than ever and they are restricted by their proximity to numerous other clubs as well as their top class rugby team. You are not looking at the bigger picture, by blaming the poor bloke who started this thread. Why are pubs resorting to showing these games? It is because they can''t afford the Sky subcriptions, at least that is one reason, Sky put them up every year. It costs a pub £12k to show Sky games, £1k per month.I can tell you that there aren''t many local pubs who can afford to take £12k a year from their bottom line. But seeing as you don''t want economic excuses, it isn''t really worth me discussing that. The low cost of supermarket booze is more to blame than anything. Pubs need money, to make money they need to show footy, they can''t afford Sky, so they find another way. At current they aren''t breaking the law.If you have a problem with this then you need to write to your MP and insist that he lobby for minimum prices per unit of alcohol in supermarkets, or await the November outcome of the current court proceedings. Alternatively, you can write to the FA and complain that they haven''t contractually capped the amount that Sky charges small pubs to use their services. None of those issues can be fixed by scapegoating the OP, or indeed by typing on this forum. If you have a real problem with it, then do something about it. I''m not going to, because I couldn''t give a sh*t.[/quote]I''m no Sky apologist but it''s fairly obvious why a Pub Sky Subscription is so pricey. 200 people in 1 pub watching football for £1k a month. Or 200 people in 100 homes each paying £50 a month to watch the games...you do the math. Can''t really blame them in this cynical money-making world can you?As for your other points, I''m just giving my opinion. I will still ALWAYS go to games as apose to watching on a laptop screen or in some dodgy pub full of plastic fans. But as I say, that''s just my opinion.I guess we agree to disagree. No offence was intented to the OP. Hope he enjoys his Pork Scratchings and pint. [/quote]Indeed, we are all welcome to express our opinions, and ours just so happen to differ. Don''t ever enter into the pub trade though mate, seriously don''t. Good luck finding a pub outside of the city centre with 200 people contained within on any night. You don''t get many games for that 12k that people are interested in watching. A big four game is the only chance that most pubs have of getting any more than a dozen people through the doors on a typical weekday in this climate, even if they got 50 they wouldn''t make much money with the margins on booze being so low for most. In fact, good luck finding a pub which will even fit 200 people through the door which isn''t a chain pub or in the city centre. I''m not talking about Wetherspoons here, I''m talking about little village pubs called the Queens Head or the Kings Arms, you know.... pubs, not chain bars. How many people do you think Bolton v Stoke will attract to a small pub in Cromer or Aylsham? Half a dozen? A few pints each? And they have to pay a grand a month for that? Pah, easy to see how the formula is failing. Sky need to adapt, the solution would be to offer pubs smaller packages, let them pick 10 games for £100 a game or 20 games for £80 a game. THEN, and only then, could they just stick the Norwich, Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea, and Liverpool games on, and wouldn''t need to find loopholes. Fully legal loopholes I must add.