LeJuge
-
Content Count
878 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by LeJuge
-
-
[quote user="Lambert is god"]A little story.
My mother-in-law lives in Lichfield and in the summer visited Norwich for the first time, going on a guided tour of the Cathedral.
The tour leader proceeded at one point to talk in glowing terms of Brian Gunn, about which I was frankly amazed. It appears that LDC is not the only Gunn fan.
Not only was Gunn''s stewardship spectacularly unsuccessful, resulting in a record home mauling by a tiny club, he managed to sign a load of complete no-hopers.
Star signing Whalley, it turns out, is now working as an electrician. Bar Holt, all his other signings were either mediocre, poor or downright awful.
BG was a fine goalkeeper in his day. But recent experience is more vivid, and what particularly irks about Gunn are the stories that I have heard from more than one supporter, who believe that he deliberately screwed his "beloved" club of money by demanding that his contract be paid up in full, despite his clear managerial failings.
And what about taking his goalkeeping son, Angus, off up north? Wasn''t he on Norwich''s books and supposed to be joining Man City, or did I get that wrong?
[/quote]"And what about taking his goalkeeping son, Angus, off up north? Wasn''t he on Norwich''s books and supposed to be joining Man City, or did I get that wrong?"Can''t see anything wrong with this one. Gunn got a job offer up north at a football agency, Angus Gunn was 15 years old. Would you leave your 15 year old son alone at home if you were moving hundreds of miles away? I''m sure that when Angus Gunn is 18 he will be able to make up his own mind about where he can live and who he can play for, but he was still a high school kid. I''m sure that he would have wanted to remain with his family at this stage in his life, especially at an age when a football future is far from assured. He didn''t leave us until May 2011, Gunn was sacked in August 2009, hardly a spiteful reactionary move...... the two events are two days apart. -
[quote user="LeJuge"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Larry David"]Indeed. While Gunn is up there with the worst managers of all time, appointing him TWICE was idiocy of the highest order. Neil Doncaster should have been forced out of the club after appointing Gunn x 2, Grant and Roeder.
[/quote]
---
Er, actually Doncaster WAS forced out of the club after those appointments. Or, to be accurate, after Grant, Roeder and Gunn Mark I. He had been axed as chief executive before Gunn''s re-appointment. Hard to blame him for that one.
But in any event the idea that Doncaster made those choices by himself is nonsense. If Doncaster had wanted those managers and Smith and Jones, with or without the others, had not then they wouldn''t have been appointed. It is, for example, a matter of public record that Roger Munby, for one, was all in favour of choosing Gunn in the wake of Roeder leaving. Equally, it was plain that Gunn''s re-appointment would not have happened without Smith and Jones wanting it.
Ultimately, credit or blame for all managerial appointments almost always (Lambert may have been the rare exception that proves the rule) lies with those who control the votes in the boardroom. And that was never Doncaster.
[/quote]"Er, actually Doncaster WAS forced out of the club after those appointments. Or, to be accurate, after Grant, Roeder and Gunn Mark I. He had been axed as chief executive before Gunn''s re-appointment. Hard to blame him for that one."Bryan Gunn was given the job permanently on 13th May 2009, Doncaster remained on 12th May 2009. We will never know how much input Doncaster had in that decision, but it was common knowledge that he was still sitting on the board and registered a director for some time after that date. "If Doncaster had wanted those managers and Smith and Jones, with or without the others, had not then they wouldn''t have been appointed.""I can confidently say that there is no chance that Gunn would have got the job with McNally at the club, so any lack of influence possessed by Doncaster is his own shortcoming. My understanding however is that it was a 5 person board of directors at the time, with Munby, Doncaster, Foulger, Smith, and Wynn-Jones. Surely a vote is a vote in the board room? It is a PLC."Equally, it was plain that Gunn''s re-appointment would not have happened without Smith and Jones wanting it."As per above, not necessarily. If Mumby, Foulger, and Doncaster voted ''yes'', and Wynn-Jones and Smith voted ''no'', then it is 3-2. Obviously things don''t quite work like that, Mumby and Doncaster were on the payroll, and likely ''yes men''...... but Smith and Wynn-Jones don''t have the level of control that they would should they reach a 75% shareholding and be forced to buy out other shareholders, it''s a PLC, they aren''t sole propertiers or lone directors in an Ltd. Five seats on the board means five votes."Ultimately, credit or blame for all managerial appointments almost always (Lambert may have been the rare exception that proves the rule) lies with those who control the votes in the boardroom. And that was never Doncaster."It lied with 5 people, of whom Doncaster was 1. It still boils down to weakness though, if Delia wanted to appoint Barry Fry when Lambert leaves then McNally won''t stick around to wipe ar*es and wax egos if it is forced through against his wishes, he would resign. Doncaster was the Chief Exective Office, the CEO, he deserves every bit of blame that he gets. If he didn''t like the heat he should have got out of the kitchen earlier, he was awful at his job, a complete misery, a liar, and somebody who seemed to do nothing other than email fans like a glorified customer service manager.[/quote]I mean, Doncaster RESIGNED on 12th May, one day before the Gunn appointment. Here is the Doncaster quote from the first appointment, by the way:"What the board of directors have to do is to calmly, objectively and ruthlessly look at all the facts, look at what qualities they feel we need, take on board the views of all interested parties and then make the appointment based on those attributes that are required."With the experience of John Deehan and knowledge of the Championship, with the gravitas, charisma and leadership qualities of Bryan Gunn, with the coaching skills, creativity and flair of Ian Crook, and the smiles on faces they will undoubtedly generate at Colney, we feel we have the best possible chance of taking the club out of the difficult situation we find ourselves in."I talked about the need for there to be a good chemistry, that X-factor. You can list all the attributes and you put together what you think is a perfect coaching team, but sometimes it doesn''t work. These three people know each other very well and they undoubtedly have chemistry, and to see them talking on the phone, there is that camaraderie and respect, and that has got to give them an advantage."Of course, every pound that you spend on one thing is a pound less that you can spend on players. So it clearly has an impact. But be in no doubt, we made this decision based on what we believe are the attributes to take the club away from difficulty, rather than on financial terms." -
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Larry David"]Indeed. While Gunn is up there with the worst managers of all time, appointing him TWICE was idiocy of the highest order. Neil Doncaster should have been forced out of the club after appointing Gunn x 2, Grant and Roeder.
[/quote]
---
Er, actually Doncaster WAS forced out of the club after those appointments. Or, to be accurate, after Grant, Roeder and Gunn Mark I. He had been axed as chief executive before Gunn''s re-appointment. Hard to blame him for that one.
But in any event the idea that Doncaster made those choices by himself is nonsense. If Doncaster had wanted those managers and Smith and Jones, with or without the others, had not then they wouldn''t have been appointed. It is, for example, a matter of public record that Roger Munby, for one, was all in favour of choosing Gunn in the wake of Roeder leaving. Equally, it was plain that Gunn''s re-appointment would not have happened without Smith and Jones wanting it.
Ultimately, credit or blame for all managerial appointments almost always (Lambert may have been the rare exception that proves the rule) lies with those who control the votes in the boardroom. And that was never Doncaster.
[/quote]"Er, actually Doncaster WAS forced out of the club after those appointments. Or, to be accurate, after Grant, Roeder and Gunn Mark I. He had been axed as chief executive before Gunn''s re-appointment. Hard to blame him for that one."Bryan Gunn was given the job permanently on 13th May 2009, Doncaster remained on 12th May 2009. We will never know how much input Doncaster had in that decision, but it was common knowledge that he was still sitting on the board and registered a director for some time after that date. "If Doncaster had wanted those managers and Smith and Jones, with or without the others, had not then they wouldn''t have been appointed.""I can confidently say that there is no chance that Gunn would have got the job with McNally at the club, so any lack of influence possessed by Doncaster is his own shortcoming. My understanding however is that it was a 5 person board of directors at the time, with Munby, Doncaster, Foulger, Smith, and Wynn-Jones. Surely a vote is a vote in the board room? It is a PLC."Equally, it was plain that Gunn''s re-appointment would not have happened without Smith and Jones wanting it."As per above, not necessarily. If Mumby, Foulger, and Doncaster voted ''yes'', and Wynn-Jones and Smith voted ''no'', then it is 3-2. Obviously things don''t quite work like that, Mumby and Doncaster were on the payroll, and likely ''yes men''...... but Smith and Wynn-Jones don''t have the level of control that they would should they reach a 75% shareholding and be forced to buy out other shareholders, it''s a PLC, they aren''t sole propertiers or lone directors in an Ltd. Five seats on the board means five votes."Ultimately, credit or blame for all managerial appointments almost always (Lambert may have been the rare exception that proves the rule) lies with those who control the votes in the boardroom. And that was never Doncaster."It lied with 5 people, of whom Doncaster was 1. It still boils down to weakness though, if Delia wanted to appoint Barry Fry when Lambert leaves then McNally won''t stick around to wipe ar*es and wax egos if it is forced through against his wishes, he would resign. Doncaster was the Chief Exective Office, the CEO, he deserves every bit of blame that he gets. If he didn''t like the heat he should have got out of the kitchen earlier, he was awful at his job, a complete misery, a liar, and somebody who seemed to do nothing other than email fans like a glorified customer service manager. -
[quote user="Crofts Number 1 Wizard"]Very interesting. He has every right to protest. He is the only natural striker at the club, other than the loanees but he isn''t even getting into the squad. Would be the marquee signing but would''ve thought that if he is available then QPR would be in there with their pit of money.[/quote]"He has every right to protest""Why? Saha has come back from Injury and thinks he is ready, Moyes doesn''t think that he is ready. Saha subsequently refused to play in a reserve game. To the contrary, Moyes has every right to outcast him. How would you like it is Simeon Jackson and Simon Lappin started refusing to play in reserve games?"He is the only natural striker at the club"What positions are Magaye Gueye, Victor Anichebe, and Apostolos Vellios supposed to play then if they aren''t natural strikers? And why would a season long loanee not count? Does that mean that Russell Martin can skip reserve teams and conduct himself like an idiot on Twitter because Naughton is taking his place?"but he isn''t even getting into the squad"He made substitute appearances on 20th August and 24th August. He refused to play a reserve game against Aston Villa and as a result has been left out of the Wigan and West Brom games. Everton won both of those games. Lambert would have done the same if any Norwich player should that sort of attitude. No player is bigger than the club, I''m glad that we don''t have players like that at the club, and as per the OP..... no, I don''t want an overpaid sulky Frenchman who thinks that he should be guarenteed a place in every squad without working for it or proving his fitness. The bloke is hardly Lionel Messi anyway, he has scored 28 league goals in 3 seasons, 9 goals per year. Not bad, but he''s 33 now and only scored 7 last year, your talking about him like he''s world class!! -
[quote user="Harry"]The traditional Romany travellers aren''t the ones that leave their rubbish all over the countryside, they have more pride than that, their caravans are immaculate many of them being all chrome and mirrors, some of these caravans cost as much as a house.You also have the Fairground travellers, a community that I have friends in, lovely people who again like the Romany travellers take pride in themselves, their families, their ride/stall and their caravan, some of the older ones become "static" whilst the younger ones travel with the fairgrounds they run stalls etc in seaside resorts, still living in their caravans on official sites.There''s also the new age travellers who travel the country in battered old vans going from protest to protest and generally being a pain in the arse.[/quote]Wish somebody would tell our media this to be honest, this is also the reason that many travellers find the term ''gypsy'' to be offensive, because it groups them all together and results in stereotypes. This is a real quote from the Daily Mail:"Dale Farm is the largest Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller site in the UK"It isn''t. It is the largest Irish Traveller site, nothing to do with Romany gypsies. Just like Freddy Eastwood (who got done for fly tipping by the way) isn''t a Romany but so often gets labelled one. By not distinguishing between the different ethnic groups, it pretty much makes us as ignorant as Americans when they call Scottish and Welsh people ''English'', or ask which part of England Britain can be found!I''m still looking forward to the Dale Farm eviction though, I spent thousands of pounds on paperwork for an extension. By the time I had submitted four planning applications, a building regulations application, and paid for architects drawings and various amendments, I had probably spent about three grand before building had even started. I do believe that there should be less red tape and bureacracy, but I can understand why these controls exist, it protects our heritage, safety, and infrastructure. If I need to pay all that money to make an extension legal, just like everybody else does, then nobody else should be considered above the law. It''s a matter of fairness rather than the way that they choose to live their lives. There are 400 residents of Dale Farm who are occupying it illegally, there are 600 who are occupying Dale Farm legally. There are 51 illegal pitches that need to be removed. Seems pretty simple to me. They are playing the persecution line and bleating on about their human rights, what a load of old crap. If you don''t obtain planning permission for a development there is a good chance that you will need to pull it down, no matter who are you, or how rich you are. I''ll start symapthising with their human rights when they refund me my planning and building regs fees. Allowing them to stay because they happen to be travellers would be inequality, it would be the law abiding citizens of every town and city who are being persecuted then. I''m really looking forward to them getting evicted, and genuinely have no sympathy for them. -
[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]Yet at one level this is not a stupid thread. Everytime Freddie Eastwood, Alan Lee or any other fooballer with traveller connections has been linked with City over the last few years, there has always been a halfwit asking where he will park his caravan. No one would ask where a black player was going to keep his cattle or an islamic player keep his camels but there is an apparently acceptable level of blind prejudice against travellers.Whether or not travellers are a distinct ethnic group, stereotyping prejudice and discrimination exists and still appears even on as informed and sophisticated a forum as this one.It is wrong, should be challenged and should be unacceptable. And I am not a traveller nor a traveller apologist. I support the evictions in Basildon because the law requires them. I do believe that labelling anyone by background and not by personal qualities is wrong. That includes travellers and for that matter ginger haired people.[/quote]I also support the eviction of travellers in Basildon, if only to make an example of them and show that they have to comply with the laws of the country that they reside in. Half of Dale Farm is actually legal, the other half illegal, the legal side will be permitted to remain.They probably would have been given planning permission had they submitted an application when they started using the other side, but they didn''t, and sometimes you have to face the consequences. If this results in them being more likely to submit planning applications in the future then good, and hopefully they will. I''m sure that there are suitable sites which could be found for them, especially brownfield sites. "Whether or not travellers are a distinct ethnic group"They typically are an ethnic group in most of Europe. A lot of the travellers in the UK however can typically just be referred to as Irish. There is a lot more history in the European travellers, in the Romani for example they have a very distinct and unique look, you can identify them from the color of their hair, skin, and often their facial features. For that reason there most certainly are ethnic groups. -
[quote user="LeJuge"]What a stupid thread, I bet you don''t even really understand what a Gypsy is. Genuine gypsies fall into one of several ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Romani who speak the Romani language, there are said to be over 10 million Romani people in Europe. The Romani gypsies go back about 1750 years and are supressed and persecuted in many countries. What British people often see in terms of ''gypsies'' are in fact Irish Travellers, who have pretty much no history and can pretty much be considered nomadic Irish people. Their history goes back about as far as the potato famine, they were effectively just groups of homeless people who took up the nomadic lifestyle because they didn''t have homes or food. The travellers at Dale Farm are mostly Irish Travellers, a group who are pretty much specific to the UK and Ireland and simply aren''t even really gypsies. They are the descendants of people who never got told that the potato famine finished.I actually met a lady whose father once lived at Dale Farm when it started in the 1970''s, it was an interesting conversation. At that time the only part of the site in existance was and still is fully legal, she said that most of the original Dale Farm residents moved out into HOUSES in towns and cities everywhere, because they accepted that their lifestyle wasn''t necessary anymore and that there was plenty of opportunity for them to integrate. She still knew a few families who live on the legal part, who complained that most of the families on the illegal part had no family history of the nomadic lifestyle and had chosen to live that way of life - not born into it. The original residents of Dale Farm, who had proud traditions, left long ago because of the influx of undesirable people. That wouldn''t happen in the Romani communities, they have their way of life and fierce traditions. Asking whether I would want a Romani gypsy to play for Norwich, I would say of course I would, if they were good enough. There are more than half a million of them in Spain, more than half a million of them in Romania, more than half a million of them in Turkey, more than half a million of them in France. It''s a bit like asking whether we would be happy for a Welsh player to play for Norwich?!?! It is often said that Freddy Eastwood is a ''Romani'', yet he lived on Dale Farm, an Irish travellers site. This means that he is not a Romani, he is in fact an Irish Traveller, and with a name like Freddy Eastwood that becomes pretty obvious too. Romani travellers don''t mix with other communities, and Romani people must marry within their own communities. Because Romani is a ethnic group and not an ideology or philosophy, Eastwood cannot become Romany just like I can''t declare myself as African. Current Romani footballers include Gignac (French International), Guiza (Spanish International), and Reyes (Spanish International, former Arsenal), add to that Quaresma (Portugal). I find it ludicrious to see gypsies referred to as some kind of inferior race or sub-culture, they aren''t aliens. There are more Romani people than there are people living in Ireland and Northern Ireland combined. [/quote]"Romani travellers don''t mix with other communities, and Romani people must marry within their own communities".This came out wrong, because obviously they do, they live in towns and cities across Europe, but active Romani travellers have a Romani code which would no doubt be incompatible with the less desireable people on Dale Farm. Most of them are heavily religious for a start. There are 90000 Romani gypsies in the UK, and 22000 Irish travellers in the UK. A Romani family would not have to live on the countries largest settlement of Irish travellers.Another interesting point is that Romani people consider the term ''Gypsy'' to be offensive in Europe, they wish to be called ''Roma'', they consider the ''G'' word to be like the ''N'' word, derogatory In the UK, we have the Gypsy Council. That just goes to show how out of touch with the real Roma people so many UK travellers are, it would be like somebody setting up the N word Council. -
What a stupid thread, I bet you don''t even really understand what a Gypsy is. Genuine gypsies fall into one of several ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Romani who speak the Romani language, there are said to be over 10 million Romani people in Europe. The Romani gypsies go back about 1750 years and are supressed and persecuted in many countries. What British people often see in terms of ''gypsies'' are in fact Irish Travellers, who have pretty much no history and can pretty much be considered nomadic Irish people. Their history goes back about as far as the potato famine, they were effectively just groups of homeless people who took up the nomadic lifestyle because they didn''t have homes or food. The travellers at Dale Farm are mostly Irish Travellers, a group who are pretty much specific to the UK and Ireland and simply aren''t even really gypsies. They are the descendants of people who never got told that the potato famine finished.I actually met a lady whose father once lived at Dale Farm when it started in the 1970''s, it was an interesting conversation. At that time the only part of the site in existance was and still is fully legal, she said that most of the original Dale Farm residents moved out into HOUSES in towns and cities everywhere, because they accepted that their lifestyle wasn''t necessary anymore and that there was plenty of opportunity for them to integrate. She still knew a few families who live on the legal part, who complained that most of the families on the illegal part had no family history of the nomadic lifestyle and had chosen to live that way of life - not born into it. The original residents of Dale Farm, who had proud traditions, left long ago because of the influx of undesirable people. That wouldn''t happen in the Romani communities, they have their way of life and fierce traditions. Asking whether I would want a Romani gypsy to play for Norwich, I would say of course I would, if they were good enough. There are more than half a million of them in Spain, more than half a million of them in Romania, more than half a million of them in Turkey, more than half a million of them in France. It''s a bit like asking whether we would be happy for a Welsh player to play for Norwich?!?! It is often said that Freddy Eastwood is a ''Romani'', yet he lived on Dale Farm, an Irish travellers site. This means that he is not a Romani, he is in fact an Irish Traveller, and with a name like Freddy Eastwood that becomes pretty obvious too. Romani travellers don''t mix with other communities, and Romani people must marry within their own communities. Because Romani is a ethnic group and not an ideology or philosophy, Eastwood cannot become Romany just like I can''t declare myself as African. Current Romani footballers include Gignac (French International), Guiza (Spanish International), and Reyes (Spanish International, former Arsenal), add to that Quaresma (Portugal). I find it ludicrious to see gypsies referred to as some kind of inferior race or sub-culture, they aren''t aliens. There are more Romani people than there are people living in Ireland and Northern Ireland combined. -
I don''t mind Lambert changing the team around, a lot of teams do it in this league, as simple as.What those teams don''t do however is leave their best players on the bench if they are playing a game that they won''t win easily. Seeing as we are Norwich and not Man Utd, no game is easy. As a result, I just don''t want to see Hoolahan sitting on the bench again, especially at home. We played a defensive formation at home to West Brom, and then went all out attack at Bolton, it made little sense to me.I don''t want to see the same XI every week, just so long as Lambert chooses the right XI for the day. Sorry if it offends anybody but Lambert simply got it very wrong against West Brom.No hard feelings, he got it right against Bolton, and got it right against Stoke. He is still learning at this level, and it won''t be the last time that he gets something wrong. Teams like Man Utd and Chelsea tinker with their teams all the time, but they always have the spine of their team. They don''t take a decision to leave a Rooney or a Lampard on the bench very lightly. Hoolahan is our Lampard, we look a lot worse with him out of the team. -
[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="GJP"][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]Succesful who play with one central striker have goals in them from other areas of the field i.e Chelsea. Not being blessed with a 20 goal a season midfielder such as a Lampard (or at least ,I don''t think we have) in our particular case the course of action most likely to bring goals, especially when playing at home is, in my opinion 2 strikers.
[/quote]
It does amuse me how people refer to Lampard as a "20 goal season" player.
Only once in his career has Lampard scored 20 goals or more in a season. It''s usually more like 10-12 goals from him.
[/quote]
Season Club Division League FA Cup League Cup Continental Total Apps Goals Assists Apps Goals Assists Apps Goals Assists Apps Goals Assists Apps Goals Assists 1995–96 → Swansea City (loan) Second Division 9 1 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 — 1995–96 West Ham United Premier League 1 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 — 1996–97 13 0 — 1 0 — 2 0 — 0 0 — 16 0 — 1997–98 31 5 — 6 1 — 5 4 – 0 0 — 42 10 — 1998–99 38 5 — 1 0 — 2 1 — 0 0 — 41 6 — 1999–2000 34 7 — 1 0 — 4 3 — 10 4 — 49 14 — 2000–01 30 7 1 4 1 — 3 1 — 0 0 — 37 9 1 2001–02 Chelsea Premier League 37 5 3 8 1 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 53 7 3 2002–03 38 6 2 5 1 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 48 8 2 2003–04 38 10 6 4 1 0 2 0 0 12 4 0 56 15 6 2004–05 38 13 16 2 0 0 6 2 0 12 4 0 58 19 16 2005–06 35 16 8 5 2 1 1 0 0 9 2 0 51 20 9 2006–07 37 11 10 7 6 2 6 3 1 12 1 2 63 21 15 2007–08 24 10 8 1 2 1 3 4 — 11 4 2 40 20 11 2008–09 37 12 10 8 3 3 2 2 1 11 3 5 57 20 19 2009–10 36 22 17 6 3 1 1 0 1 7 1 1 51 27 20 2010–11 24 10 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 32 13 6 2011–12 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 2 Total Swansea City 9 1 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 — Total West Ham 147 24 1 13 2 — 16 9 — 10 4 — 186 39 1 Total Chelsea 349 116 87 48 22 9 28 11 3 85 21 11 515 171 110 Career total 505 141 88 62 24 — 44 20 — 95 25 — 711 211 — Courtesy of our good friend "Wikipedia"
[/quote]Not sure what column you are looking in, but the column that I am looking in shows this for the past 8 years:132720202120191587I know that you are about to say "I was talking about league goals".... but to expect any player in any position to score 20 goals in this league is simply mental. The two top scorers last year were Carlos Tevez and Dimitar Berbatov on 20 goals each. To compare Lampards goals from last year would be unfair because he spent a long time injured, but his 22 goals the year before put him at 5th in the goalscoring charts!Even if we do limit ourselves to league goals, Lampards 116 goals in 349 games for Chelsea is astronomical, it makes him by far the best goalscoring midfielder in the best league in the world over the past decade. People used to call Paul Scholes a goalscoring midfielder, but he only managed 102 goals in 466 league games for Man Utd. He scored some important Champions League goals too of course, but we aren''t counting those right? Then there is Ryan Giggs, 110 in 616. Our best goalscoring midfielder is Hoolahan, who has scored 24 in 114. To question Lampards goalscoring ability, or indeed the title as a 20 goal a season midfielder, is just silly. If there is one thing that Lampard can do it is score goals.I can''t stand Lampard, but even I can''t find a way to question the simple fact that he is an incredible goalscorer who has been a legend for Chelsea and has no doubt won them silverware during his time there. He doesn''t just score goals either, he sets up a lot too. -
[quote user="NWC"]This thread should keep the xenophobes happy.[/quote]I can''t really see anything xenophobic about this thread, I just see a few people with no grasp of geography or politics. It was just an interesting statistic, at least it would have been had it have been a correct one. -
[quote user="Mr. Bump"][quote]Furthermore, and perhaps more alarmingly, since when has our squad contained any players from Northern Ireland? We don''t have any, and with 3500 posts on this forum over three years, I''d have thought that you would know our squad inside out and enough to know that we haven''t had a Northern Irish player since Paul McVeigh.[/quote]Huh? He was wrong to think that Northern Ireland isn''t in the UK but he asked if the other teams'' totals that Banana posted included NI players, nothing to do with ours?[quote]Back to the OP''s post. As others have pointed out, Hoolahan is Irish born and bred. You could also argue that Anthony Pilkington is Irish by virtue of the fact that he made the decision to represent Ireland at International level. Sure, he was born in Blackburn, but Simone Perrotta was born near Manchester and went on to win the World Cup with Italy. If we were playing Simone Perrotta you would have a hard time calling us a completely British XI, so the same should apply to Pilkington. If it is true that Marc Tierney is to play for Ireland, then the same could be said for him too.[/quote]Can''t ROI born players opt to play for NI instead and vise versa? So, seeing as Wes only played in a friendly, is it possible that he could get called up to the NI squad and thus be deemed British?[/quote]"Huh? He was wrong to think that Northern Ireland isn''t in the UK but he asked if the other teams'' totals that Banana posted included NI players, nothing to do with ours?"Fair enough, it was still a silly thing to say. "Can''t ROI born players opt to play for NI instead and vise versa? So, seeing as Wes only played in a friendly, is it possible that he could get called up to the NI squad and thus be deemed British?"Don''t be so silly. Wes Hoolahan has a full senior cap for the Republic of Ireland, that makes him ineligible for any other nation other than the Republic of Ireland.As for whether an uncapped Wes Hoolahan would be eligible to play for Nothern Ireland, the answer is probably not, dependant on whether any of his parents or grandparents were actually born in Northern Ireland or not. The same rules apply in that direction as apply to every other European team. I know that most British people are proudly ignorant of anything political, but the Good Friday agreement is one of the most famous pieces of documentation in the past two decades, globally in fact. It allowed anybody from Northern Ireland to declare themselves Irish and claim an Irish passport. It did not however allow anybody from the Republic of Ireland to declare themselves British and claim a British passport, for that they had to have proof of British heritage. Pretty much anybody from Northern Ireland can, as a result, declare themselves as Irish and play for the Republic of Ireland. Even if they have no relatives born in Ireland and can in fact trace their roots to England. A player raised in Dublin or Cork, with no immediate relatives from Northern Ireland, would not be able to do the same. So the answer is probably not. Paul McVeigh on the other hand, being from Belfast, could have declared himself Irish and played for Ireland. -
[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"]I haven''t got the time to check but do your stats include ROI or NI players Banana?If so they''re not British.[/quote]Since when has Northern Ireland not been British? It is not part of the British Isles, but it is in the United Kingdom, otherwise called ''Britain''. Whilst you could argue that some people in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be ''Irish'', some 73% wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. There are four ''home nations'', England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. The Northern Irish are as British as the Scottish or the Welsh, even if some of them object to that. Furthermore, and perhaps more alarmingly, since when has our squad contained any players from Northern Ireland? We don''t have any, and with 3500 posts on this forum over three years, I''d have thought that you would know our squad inside out and enough to know that we haven''t had a Northern Irish player since Paul McVeigh. Back to the OP''s post. As others have pointed out, Hoolahan is Irish born and bred. You could also argue that Anthony Pilkington is Irish by virtue of the fact that he made the decision to represent Ireland at International level. Sure, he was born in Blackburn, but Simone Perrotta was born near Manchester and went on to win the World Cup with Italy. If we were playing Simone Perrotta you would have a hard time calling us a completely British XI, so the same should apply to Pilkington. If it is true that Marc Tierney is to play for Ireland, then the same could be said for him too.Still impressive nonetheless. -
It''s the defence that concerns me. Whilst we have been lacklustre up front with the Martin and Holt partnership, I genuinely believe that we have the players necessary to fix that problem. Both Vaughan and Jackson pack an extra yard or two of pace on Holt and Martin. It is the back four which concerns me, we only need to score 1 more than the opposition, the question is how many the opposition are going to score. We got promoted last year on that very ethos, we only kept 9 clean sheets in the league last year from 46 games, we went up because we found the extra goal. It was going to be tougher in all areas of the pitch this year, there really was no doubt about that, but looking back at the first four games.... have we really scored less than expected? West Brom was the first game in which we scored less than could be realistically expected.Wigan - We scored an away goal, Hoolahan took his chance. Wigan missed as many, if not several more, decent chances than us.Stoke - They keep more clean sheets than pretty much everybody, we scored against the best defence in the league. Chelsea - Did we really expect to score at Stamford Bridge? I didn''t, I was prediction 4-0 to Chelsea. West Brom - The first game that we simply didn''t look like scoring. It was clear that we weren''t threatening against West Brom, but no team in this league can ''expect'' to score against Chelsea away, and Stoke will keep clean sheets against far better teams than us this year. In fact they already have, they have kept clean sheets against Liverpool and Chelsea. Actually we are the ONLY team to score against Stoke in the league this year. Wigan have played all three of the promoted teams already, and we were the only one of those teams to score against them. West Brom are hardly shipping goals either, they conceeded 2 to Man Utd, 2 to Chelsea, and got beaten one 89th minute goal against Stoke. As the home team we really should have controlled the game more against West Brom, as somebody on here has already said, the "did a job on us". They really did. I don''t think goals are going to be a problem. With four games gone Holt has already banged one in, will bang a few more in this year too, we still have Simeon Jackson, James Vaughan, and Steve Morison, all waiting for their chance. One of them will take their chance, I''m pretty confident of that. With Hoolahan and Vaughan in the team, alongside Holt, I certainly wouldn''t bet against us scoring against any team. I don''t think any away team is going to take us lightly this season, and if they do we will punish them. Bolton have shipped 11 goals in 4 games by the way, the most in the division, even more than Arsenal. We WILL score goals tomorrow, I''ll put a fiver on it with anybody on here. COME ON CITY! -
[quote user="Mr. Bump"]Have a read through this thread.http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/2/2614136/ShowPost.aspx#2614136[/quote]He wants a lift from London! That thread relates to a lift from Norfolk! -
[quote user="Drurys Testamonials"]Beware as WITS was slated when she questioned this[/quote]Many people believe that Smudger was using WITS account, and the rumour is that they are a couple. Don''t shoot the messenger, but we have been through this on here already.Either way, whether it was Smudger or WITS, ''they'' were not slated for questioning his ability, I started a thread which suggested people lay off him, I was particularly emphasising my personal objection to the use of the nickname ''wheeliebin'' which I considered derogatory. I myself do not believe that he is good enough for the Championship yet alone the Premiership, but the way that people are talking about him on here for no reason whatsoever is disgusting, he played a role in a great achievement last year like everybody else, even it it were a small one. He was worth the £100k transfer fee for his goal alone, and we can all assume that he is on a very modest wage. The club gave him an 18 month deal, in the knowledge that it was a gamble. It was a gamble for him too, as he would have known not to expect football in the Premiership. If we had have faltered then we wouldn''t have had the money to buy Vaughan and Morison, and as such we can assume that he would be getting game time.Why not celebrate the fact that Wilbraham''s goal and assist last year were one small factor in allowing us to sign two better strikers, rather than pointlessly discussing a player who you are unlikely to see at Carrow Road this season. I guess that we can all be glad that he is still here, because if he is released it will only result in a bunch of idiots on here turning their attentions to some other fringe player for absolutely no reason. It''s not like Lambert is playing him, I''d be the first to grumble if a fully fit Holt and Morison sit on the bench with Wilbraham starting a Premier League fixture, but as of yet he hasn''t had a minute of game time and starting threads questioning him is purely pointless.In any 25 man squad there will be 16-20 regular players and 5 who see very little football, that is football, you can only put 14 on the pitch each game, not seeing the other 5 normally suggests that the players on the pitch are doing their job well and as such that is good news not bad news. There are always some good players and some distinctly average players. What happens when we release Wilbraham? Do people then turn on Drury? Or Lappin? We only have 23 men, we name 18 in a squad, it only takes 6 injuries to be down to the under 20''s..... and don''t rule that out, it happens a lot, look at Arsenal. If it comes down to putting an average target man on the bench or somebody from the under 16''s I know what I would choose.Football is a strange game, and a few injuries can ruin a season. If we were to ever suffer an injury crisis and there was a clear choice between playing an injured striker, potentially wrecking our season, or letting Wilbraham do a job..... I would want Wilbraham to do a job. This is how many over 21 strikers the bottom 8 clubs have.....Blackburn 6Swansea 5Fulham 5Norwich 6Sunderland 2 (Wickham and Dong-Won under 21, Sunderland are f''d by the way, 2 goals in 4)Tottenham 4Bolton 5 (Kakuta is under 21)West Brom 5Most clubs have 5 strikers. Yes Wilbraham is a spare part as a result, but having a 6th choice striker isn''t incredibly unusual, most teams have 5 strikers. Spurs are pushing it with 4, and Sunderland look like they are in trouble relying on kids to score goals this year. We don''t need Wilbraham, but you need 5 strikers, and if one happens to get a horrific injury (Vaughan has had 3 and he is only 23) then we are down to the 5. -
[quote user="lappinitup"]Much better than Jackson.....and Cody McDonald........[/quote]How can you say that Wilbraham is better than Simeon Jackson? Surely Jackson did enough in the second half of last season to show that he is a very good player and deserves his chance this year. In fact, against West Brom, it looked like we were crying out for Simeon Jackson.On another thread on this forum a couple of weeks ago I produced some stats which showed that Jackson was one of the most lethal strikers in the Championship last year and needed less chances per goal than any other player in our squad, including Holt and Hoolahan. Less chances than James Vaughan and Steve Morison too.With us looking desperate for somebody clinical in this league, I think that we are crying out for Simeon Jackson and Simeon Jackson is crying out for his chance. After coming off the bench in the International break and bagging a goal for Canada, I was very surprised not to see him involved on Sunday. Maybe Lambert thinks that keeping him on the bench will keep him hungry, and that he will unleash him when the time is right, but I am personally looking forward to him getting his chance. -
[quote user="Mr. Bump"]When LeJuge sees this he''s going to tear you a new one.[/quote]Graham Humphrey has already said all that I would have said. -
[quote user="City1st"]I''m sure there would have been many more alongside master clarke, had a few of the more ''enlightened'' supporters allowed it a little bit of a longer run before so eagerly rushing inas to who is being painted in a bad light - I would suggest no one isother than one or two who appear not to need any help from anyone else to achieve that aim[/quote]This has been the best thread on the board since I started posting rather than lurking, it should win a national award. -
[quote user="cityangel"]Its also common knowledge that you''re not going to be able to wear scarves anymore unless they are offficial ones bought at the club shop.
Oh and in case anyone is interested I''ve had my knuckles rapped for telling people to use the 01603 tel number, when they ring the box office.
Presume they don''t make any revenue from that number.
Oh to be back in the Championship when life was easier for us fans and we had more to smile about [:)][:)]
[/quote]I heard that they are going to go one step further than that.... scarves will have a two year expiry date like shirts. Both shirts and scarfs from the club shop will be leased for two years rather than bought, after that two years you have to return it to the club so that they can stitch the latest sponsor on it and re-lease it to somebody else. Anybody caught wearing a scarf which has an expired lease will be prosecuted and banned from the ground! Under 18''s are going to have to be accompanied with a guarentor adult who can commit to paying ''late return fees'' if the scarf or shirt isn''t returned before the deadline! As a gesture of goodwill they are going to allow you to wear expired beanie hats for as long as you want, because this allows them to turn off the heating in the Russell Allison lounge! -
[quote user="Gerry Harrison"]McNally has changed the rules on Tweeting![/quote]Ahhhh.... that will explain it! -
[quote user="Gerry Harrison"][quote user="TheJarrold"]So does this mean I can''t wear one of my classic home shirts to a home game? Unless they are gonna be there to offer me a free shirt on the way in they can ''jog on!''
Another example of the club treating fans disgracefully
[/quote]McNally just tweeted "Retro type shirts may be worn in the stadium, however customers must now have their shirt printed with the name of the current club sponsor on the front. The can be done in the matchday club shop (located in the Jarrold Stand) for a one off cost of £25. When the shirt sponsor changes, customers must then have the old sponsor removed and the new name printed. This will cost £50 due to the cost of removing the old sponsors name."[/quote]If you had cut that short at the ''£25'' bit then you might have suckered a few people in, but good luck trying to squeeze all that into a single tweet! -
[quote user="clarkey1972"]have never so much sh111te in all my lifedont beleive a word of itwhy do people take time out to start such pathetic posts and paint the club in such a bad light.[/quote]I can only assume that you are a Canary call regular, which one are you? -
I heard that we were going to discontinue the 11 a side team enter a 7 a side league. That way we can make the pitch shorter and insert at least another two rows of advertising around the pitch. They are just waiting for approval from Powerleague to allow half of our fixtures to be played on our own pitch rather than at Bowthorpe. This also means that we won''t the new big dugouts and Mr Tilson and the ill treated dozen will get their original seats back!
Bryan Gunn is today's guest on Keys and Gray
in Main Discussion - Norwich City
Posted
A little story.
My mother-in-law lives in Lichfield and in the summer visited Norwich for the first time, going on a guided tour of the Cathedral.
The tour leader proceeded at one point to talk in glowing terms of Brian Gunn, about which I was frankly amazed. It appears that LDC is not the only Gunn fan.
Not only was Gunn''s stewardship spectacularly unsuccessful, resulting in a record home mauling by a tiny club, he managed to sign a load of complete no-hopers.
Star signing Whalley, it turns out, is now working as an electrician. Bar Holt, all his other signings were either mediocre, poor or downright awful.
BG was a fine goalkeeper in his day. But recent experience is more vivid, and what particularly irks about Gunn are the stories that I have heard from more than one supporter, who believe that he deliberately screwed his "beloved" club of money by demanding that his contract be paid up in full, despite his clear managerial failings.
And what about taking his goalkeeping son, Angus, off up north? Wasn''t he on Norwich''s books and supposed to be joining Man City, or did I get that wrong?
[/quote]"And what about taking his goalkeeping son, Angus, off up north? Wasn''t he on Norwich''s books and supposed to be joining Man City, or did I get that wrong?"Can''t see anything wrong with this one. Gunn got a job offer up north at a football agency, Angus Gunn was 15 years old. Would you leave your 15 year old son alone at home if you were moving hundreds of miles away? I''m sure that when Angus Gunn is 18 he will be able to make up his own mind about where he can live and who he can play for, but he was still a high school kid. I''m sure that he would have wanted to remain with his family at this stage in his life, especially at an age when a football future is far from assured. He didn''t leave us until May 2011, Gunn was sacked in August 2009, hardly a spiteful reactionary move...... the two events are two days apart. [/quote]FFS, I mean two YEARS apart.