Renskay

Nothing in this at all from a rumour front but the game the other day made me VERY concerned about the lack of replacement for Skipp and I was trying think of someone who could do the same job. The name I've come up with is Brazilian-Portuguese Gustavo Assunção from Famalicão in Liga NOS. He's the son of former Athletico Madrid player Paulo Assunção. Gustavo is a hard working defensive midfielder that has a touch of flair about him and most likely has a high ceiling of talent, as is proven by the fact Man Utd were sniffing around last year. Here's a tactical analysis of him from his breakout 19/20 season In 2020, he signed a long term deal until 2025 so this will up his price range but Famalicão are not the most wealthy team and the possibility for a fair price remains. The main reports of interest I've seen for him this summer are from Bordeaux in France and Lazio in Italy and they are quoting figures in the €10m - €15m range which seems like our sweet spot. The only concern I'd have with a player like this is if he speaks English and the ability for squad integration. I think it was one issue of perhaps many with the Amadou signing that reportedly his English wasn't the best and as Farke needs his players to understand the tactics thoroughly, this poses an issue. Although interviews with the young chap Gustavo in his native Portuguese always make him come across as really positive and nice. Never stops smiling. A bit of that Onel style positivity.

The PAOK squad are in Ireland at the moment for a Europa League Conference game against Bohemians. The PAOK fans are thinking that if Tziolis doesn't start it's because his move is a possibility.

From the PAOK fans forum https://forum.paokmania.gr/viewtopic.php?t=8022&p=1919385#p1919385

Could be 😅

Who was the last Norwich City first team player that had an East-Anglian accent? Not in the first team and not the strongest accent but the closest I've heard for a while. for a few laughs give this a listen too

Why is it any better for a single parent household to be created by divorce? I know you will try to make the claim that people should be entitled to escape partnerships that are abusive but this is a minority of circumstances that motivate the reasons for a divorce. Most divorces occur for reasons that would have otherwise not been issues in the past as rather than a bond for life in the original intention of the concept, marriage is now treated as some bureaucratic label that people do not feel any responsibility towards even if is there quite literally people depending on them to do so (i.e. Children) We should not incentivize single parent households in any circumstance where it is not necessary because in each instance we deteriorate the quality of life of all children involved and then create a generation of people mentally broken for reasons far less important than they are suggested to be. Why would we desire to make the emotional and mental standard of living worse for our next generation?

No. That is a very ignorant deduction from what I just said to you and stupidly cold on a human level to even suggest that a person growing up without the natural nurture of two parents in a home gets the exact same benefits if you just throw enough money at them. You completely ignore the mental aspects are quite obviously linked to single parent households, that obviously don't solely happen just because you don't have enough money. if that were so ALL poor households would replicate the same results to the same extent which they do not. As @Dean Coneys boots stated in his post there is a huge factor of people from single parent homes turning to crime, suicide or homelessness. The question you should ask is why beyond the inhuman way you have already done. Clearly a person with a good family structure with two role models, each guiding them with unique abilities each parent can provide will have a healthier home life mentally as they feel actually loved and not abandoned (which is the primary emotion single children feel in regards to their departed parent) It boggles the mind how you claim there are too many perks of having a "nuclear family" when in actuality it has never been harder for a young couple to settle down and have children and at the same time you advocate more money to be given to people in single parent households as a substitute for both parents in the home --- which is clearly an incentive to create more single parent households as has been the case in the USA where more and more people forego actually partnering up with the person who fathered/mothered their child to receive benefits from the government and the children of the situation to become mentally broken more and more with each generation and led down a path of crime (in many circumstances) and failure due the human circumstances beyond just money people like you can so readily overlook. It is particularly a problem in the African-American community where single parent households are at ridiculously high rates of 70% or higher African-American children born to single parent households. This clearly has an effect as there is a direct causation in these same disadvantaged children, who have their fathers substituted by government handouts, and those who turn to crime. Too much strain is put on one person in raising a child, which no amount of money will fix. People are not machines.

This is by far the most ridiculous thing you've suggested in this thread so far and you've made a lot of wild claims already. There are countless real world examples most people can attest to that show children of single parent households don't have the same advantages, opportunities, benefits, healthcare, etc because as opposed to having two fully grown adults taking care of them, offering the opportunities to nurture the child in their most crucial stages of development, they just have one parent, who will of course need to work to provide food and shelter. Which, as has already been stated, is becoming increasingly difficult in the modern world where those "nuclear" families you like to complain about so much can barely scrape by with raising just one child as housing and standard of living costs go up - meaning most western nations are currently at a below replacement level birth rate (below 2 child per family). This will eventually lead to an economic collapse as there are less workers to fulfill jobs that fund the pensions of the elderly and maintain society which is why there is a push for immigration to fill this gap that will occur. There are countless studies that have found the negative effects of single parent households which give off the impression it is highly more beneficial to a child to have a 2 parent ("nuclear family") raise them as opposed to a single parent. Increased health risks of children with single mothers: the impact of socio-economic and environmental factors "Children with single mothers showed an increased risk regarding parent-reported..." poor health status psychological problems overweight asthma "Adjusting for socio-economic factors attenuated the strength of the association of family type with child health. Although environmental factors were associated with most health outcomes investigated and children of single mothers were more often exposed, these environmental factors did not alter the differences between children with single mothers and couple families." "Conclusions: The increased health risks of children from single-mother families vs. Couple families are partly explained by socio-economic factors, but not by the environmental exposures studied." Children of single parent households have higher cases of mental health problems Children of single parent households struggle more academically

There's a guy who I only discovered through FM that was in Norwich City's academy before moving to Chelsea and then Bayern Munich. Always turns into a superstar. Bright Arrey-Mbi

Why is a fanbase being majority white in a majority white city considered a negative? Are you suggesting the amount of white people in the fanbase makes BAME people feel unwelcome? Norwich City demographics (2011) Norfolk demographics (2011)

I was scouring around transfermarkt to find someone with enough creativity to match half of what Buendia did and the guy I liked the look of is Jesper Lindström. 9 Goals and 9 Assists at Brondby and voted young player of the year in the Danish league .

I can't even imagine how you can replace Buendia. Webber has made his job an awful lot harder with this decision.

The ball is an element that does seem a little childishly drawn but you are right in that as the badge is currently is very sleek and well representing of the city.

I don't want it changed. I was just asking.

Many seemed to be a bit perturbed by the idea that the badge would change when suggested that it was a project Webber was contemplating. The biggest fear about any change to me would be the badge losing some element of character and just becoming a bland corporate logo like Juventus have done with their badge. I like the badge currently and don't know how it would be improved upon -- I tried to mess around with the logo and made these but it is hard to be beat the current badge.

The logical assumption a person could draw from a child left dead with strange marks and puncture wounds all over their body is that they did not do it to themselves. It is actually quite disingenuous to suggest a person left in such a state was not murdered. This is why the claim the boy was murdered is not disputed by any party whatsoever. The disputed aspect of the story is who the guilty party may have been.

The quote I cited is from Thomas of Monmouth's original work "Vita et passio Sancti Willemi martyris Norwicensis" which is translated from it's original Latin by another clergyman from Norfolk Augustus Jessop in a separate book called "The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich", published in 1896, which also provides sceptical rational arguments to each piece of evidence in the case diligently, but since the extent of your research involved putting the quote in Google maybe that's all *you* could find. There is a multitude of evidence involving multiple parties who present correlating evidence and eyewitness testimony claims. Just because this information has been gathered and reported in one specific book does not make it "only one original" source of evidence. Since this book was written by a man of the clergy is reason for it to be considered more credible, not less so. It is a source of testimony from the people of the area from the time the incident occurred and for some reason in your fanatical attempts to discredit it, to your mind these first-hand reports of people from the area of the time whom are most likely to present an accurate version of events are less credible than the people who accuse "anti-Semitism" hundreds of years later. and here yet again to use your terminology you "double down" on your Anti-Christian sentiment and slander Christians. Suggesting that men of God are so terribly flawed that I am to assume wrongdoing on their part as first instinct by your suggestion of their character instead of holy men who wished to do right by a young innocent boy who did nothing wrong but nevertheless was slain. Worse yet, you suggest they would go through the guise of propagating a story with "no evidence" for the sake of profit. This is libellous against Christians but in our day and age you can just throw out these assertions with no basis but when I present well argued points in regard to history you think my voice should be silenced. This has been an eye opener of a conversation indeed.

The accusations had been around the City since the event took place till far beyond the day Monmouth arrived. He documented the claims by recording the evidence and published multiple volumes of The Life and Passion of William of Norwich. The first of which being in 1150 - just 6 years after the event. "Neither the Sheriff or ecclesiastical courts had take any interest " The Sheriff of Norwich , John de Caineto, acknowledged on his deathbed he had been bribed by the Jewish community to a pact silence to not mention the event. “It is said that Erlward did nothing further except continue on his way to his own home in the city. With the coast clear, the two Jews returned and simply hung the sack holding William’s body on a tree and galloped home, still in panic. Aware that there was now a witness to the disposal of the body, the Jewish leaders decided that they needed to obtain the protection of the City Sheriff, John de Caineto, who as the King’s representative, was obliged to act on the Jew’s behalf for they were his source of ready money. In return for a willing bribe offered by the Jews, de Caineto instructed Aelward not to divulge anything he might have seen in Thorpe Wood”. It really is so hypocritical to me that you will make such hay out of a reference to a historical event which there is evidence against the Jewish community by calling it slanderous and labelling "libel" but when you openly blaspheme the church with this statement going so far as to suggest they would martyr a murdered child just for the sake of profit you care not a peep. To me this really is grotesque and unlike with the case involving William of Norwich, it has absolutely no evidence to back it up. To suggest the construction of a Chapel and the desire of Martyrdom of an innocent boy for wholly cynical and unfaithful reasons. This is completely anti-Christian sentiment. Yet you can just baselessly throw out these accusations against men of God, men of the Church and the people of Norwich. To you it's perfectly acceptable to slander them. Blaspheme them even. But for me to reference history I am supposedly committing the act of "libel" on a whole religion. Grotesque.

This video speaks louder and louder to me every day.

"it took him over two decades to come up with his story" Thomas of Monmouth wrote his account of the event in 1150, this is not two decades after the event but perhaps this is your own failure at mathematics. "There is no evidence, zip, nada, nothing." It's very amusing how you can suggest there is no evidence repeatedly but any reference to that evidence you label anti-semitic and remove entirely from the forum.

I posted a reference to a historical event which you specifically interpreted as "antisemetic". I investigated the history of the particular event after you made such an elaborate song and dance about how inaccurate I was being and found out there is indeed evidence which suggests that it's not like you claimed and you interpret this as "doubling-down" on "anti-semitism" You repeatedly state there is "no evidence whatsoever" to explain the conclusions of the people at the time but your own evidence which you use to suggest as an accurate representation is a semi-fictional play from the 90's. The idea that you can get a more accurate account of a historical event from something published about 850 years after it occurred is quite frankly absurd. This monk you referenced as writing these "antisemetic" writings "three decades" later actually wrote his first account in 1150, just 6 years after the event occurred in 1144, and the work was refined with more detail until 1172 in it's final volume. He had first-hand accounts from people who knew the boy personally, such as family, friends, monks who were also even present, at the same abbey Thomas himself worked at, in examining the body themselves. There is even testimony from local people such as the sheriff of Norwich who claimed the Jewish community bribed him to a pact of silence about the incident and even reports of several people in the community with first-hand knowledge being offered bribes from the Jewish community to maintain their silence - the boy's own brother attests he was offered a bribe. If an attempt at accurate historical accounts is deemed as "anti-semitism" maybe you need to rethink your own definitions of the accusation.

No it is not disputed that the young boy was murdered. Even sources from Jewish academics acknowledge that the boy's murdered body was found in Mousehold Heath (Thorpe Wood). On the 24th March, 1144 a woodsman named Henry de Sprowston found the corpse of the young boy in the wood with a shaven head, thorn marks on his scalp and puncture wounds on the side of his body. A local priest named Godwin Sturt came to examine the boy and recognised him as his wife's nephew. A Chapel was even constructed in honour of the young boy originally named The Chapel of Saint William in the Wood. What is disputed about this incident is not the young boy's death but the assertion of guilt of who exactly killed young William. There is evidence from local people collected by Thomas of Monmouth, a monk who moved to Norwich to the same Abbey the boy was martyred at 4-6 years after the event took place in a ranged period of 1148-150 and the conclusions he drew from the collected evidence.

So contemporary evidence and post modern value judgements take precedence for an incident that happened in the 1100s rather than accounts written documenting the incident in detail from the time period? Do you not realise how mad you sound in your accusations of Anti-Semitism here?

I thought we weren't supposed to mention this topic? I'm ok with just letting it lie but instead of just letting it settle you are ready to give a history lesson of the whole thing but when I just reference it as an event in history you report me, when I suggest there is evidence that it's not entirely as you claimed (which there is) you report me again. It seems you're perfectly happy for this subject to be presented but you'd prefer it was exclusively on your terms and anyone who questions the interpretation you have they are now "anti-semetic". As I said you have given me a lot to think about with this whole interaction.