BobLoz3

Alcohol is probably THE most damaging drug out there. Totally understand what you're saying, Indy and also with regards to cannabis which I believe should be legal and is far less damaging. The issue is that alcohol is freely available (in that it's available everywhere) and not hugely expensive. So people consume it at a ridiculous level if they have an addiction. I have a good friend, who became completely unknown to me for some time as he was hugely addicted to booze. It was actually soul destroying to see what a mess he became. Just a constant stream of lies spilling out of his mouth and he couldn't even speak straight half the time, such was the effect of the amount he was drinking. Another person known to me through friends recently died because of his alcoholism. He was about 34 years old. Destroyed himself with it. So, as much as we all like a drink let's not try and pretend that gambling is as damaging to ones health as booze is. This is why I said earlier on that it makes sense that alcohol companies aren't allowed to sponsor sports teams anymore. Ok, we might not go, "I'm gonna drink Foster's now as they sponsor our shirt" but those companies would undoubtedly then have various other brand activation things going on which WOULD have one sole purpose... To get people drinking their product! The irony of all this is that I work in the drinks industry! However, everything we do promotes responsible drinking and it is the same for alcohol companies. They have to do that. Gambling companies also try and promote responsible gambling. It is a very thin line to tread, admittedly

Well, booze and cigarette advertising on sports shirts, cars etc. has been banned for some time now. Will they take the same step with gambling...? I doubt it. I actually have no qualms with a betting company sponsoring us and I am fully behind our decision to make money in whatever way we can (although I realise the membership thing is polarising). It's true what they're saying. We're pinching pennies and any lucrative revenue streams should be welcomed. This likely won't have an impact on the footballing side as I doubt they'll be using the sponsorship money to buy players. However, what people seem to forget about a lot of the time is the astronomical costs a football club has day to day and, well, just in even opening the gates on a match day. It isn't simply about buying players and paying wages... Sometimes I feel that football supporters overlook some of these facts.

Awesome stuff! Gotta love Big Ben!

Yes, I understood the point the first time! 😊 Not saying that Webber would have been totally oblivious to what was happening with the membership, but I am saying he shouldn't be held accountable for it. It's a commercial decision. I work in a commercial capacity and, while our MD would drive things, I would be the person ultimately responsible for hitting my targets etc. However I choose to do it. The board certainly could come in for some scrutiny on that as they would also have to approve it. But the job of taking up the slack from Stone actually fell to Kensell and Zoe Ward... Webber is also on this 'executive committee' but I still feel his job (and also that of Zoe's) is more the footballing side.

I doubt it, Vince. Webber's role is for the footballing side. I don't think he is to be held accountable for anything else other than that.

Can't help but think that this might be because Webber is the Sporting Director and therefore doesn't have too much say in the commercial aspect, instead focussing on the footballing side. I would suggest that the person who needs grilling about the membership scheme is Ben Kensell.

Don't need to apologise. I get that those boys can be polarising, but I tip my hat to them because at least they're getting out there and doing something! They clearly love it and, sort of, almost seem as though they can't believe they're being given this type of access to the football club they love. Good on them.

Ummm yeah... They're not brothers. Sometimes people have the same surnames and aren't related. I know... CRAZY huh?! I thought it was good. Well done to the TNC boys for even getting him on the podcast. It's cool that Webber is happy to do that and doesn't shirk away from these sorts of things.

I think they're called "Stevie G's Rangers" 😉

Can't really stand Chelsea. One of the first clubs I can remember responsible for bringing this "boutique club" feel into football. Bunch of fans who think they deserve the world and act like spoiled children when things don't work out. They're another, like Leeds, who have a ridiculously inflated opinion of themselves. Mind you, at least Chelsea have been successful when attempting to buy a title! But hey. The whole thing is super funny to me and it would make me chuckle very much if they ever found themselves in a relegation battle.

Mair signed now too... For the U23's admittedly but he's quite highly rated. Apparently still waiting on Fitzpatrick. That deal is stalling. But that's another who, although was starting at Partick Thistle, will likely be in U23's too.

You've probably seen a bit more about him now but, decent player in my opinion. His last two seasons have been ravaged by injuries, which is mildly concerning, but he's clearly passed a medical so all good there. Had his most prolific season at Nurnberg, scoring 17 goals. Has a bit of pace about him, likes to run on to through balls and finish quickly and accurately (a bit like Pukki really!) Also seems to have very good feet. The vids of him at Nurnberg show some outrageous skills! I'm quite pleased about his signing. Good back-up to Teemu.

You have to fight it out with the other 5000 people who bought Premier level priority toilet membership. It is going to be quite messy.

Ha! Yes you'll still have to use that unless you're thinking about flying to a different country every week. Which, coincidentally, is what I did last season in order to view iFollow matches in a legal fashion... 😊

Pointless having it really isn't it? If it's not TV yet still called Canaries TV??! Weird. Just glad that multiple other countries are allowed to show Premier League games without Sky charging an arm and a leg to view it. So that means we all should be able to see most Norwich games one way or the other.

I think Andy Murray is great. There I said it. I like tennis and I'm glad he's been able to make a comeback. Good on him. Funny how people from England want to support him when he's doing well and claim him as 'one of their own' yet when he's not playing, he's some sadsack from Scotland. Bizarre! Anyway, I prefer footie to tennis any day of the week. As an aside, I once saw Judy Murray on a flight to Edinburgh as she was sat behind me. Easyjet flight, from the horror that is Luton airport, so they do slum it sometimes too. 😉

I am still confused. We know that Premier League away games have to be £30 now, regardless of where that game is. But wasn't it also said that we'd be charging only £30 for home games too? If we change the membership scheme now, would home games for casual supporters go up and be more than that? I have a season ticket so will be at the home games. I don't really travel away that often, so this whole thing doesn't irk me as much as others. I'm just thinking that it was brought in so we could keep home games at a lower rate without losing too much money. All I'll say is that I hope this commercial side doesn't have too much on a impact on the footballing side (different pots, different budgets?)

Up until this morning, we didn't know that. Hence the discussion.

Ah, ok, this clears it up https://www.90min.com/posts/6311923-ifab-approves-several-new-law-changes-but-falsely-reported-penalty-rebound-rule-not-among-them

Yep. I'm sure I saw that too. But looking at the rules again and the only thing it says on pens is about the goalkeeper not being allowed to move off the line, rattle the crossbar or do knee wobbling and the like.

I don't know. Not really a fan! Although it will iron out some ref errors, it will also cause way more hassle than it's worth and slow games down massively. With the idea of replaying VAR decisions on big screens (if a ground has one) to also come into play, I feel this could lead to a way more toxic atmosphere than is necessary!

I think the powers that be want to sign Rhodes permanently, just so we can still do the Farke on a horse song... As an aside, someone suggested that we replace his name with 'Klose'. I had to politely explain that his name is pronounced with two syllables and therefore would completely **** up the song.

Seems that we may have been used as a bit of a bargaining chip now, hey? I can understand the desire to play for a side like Celtic, after all they'll win regularly in that league, probably come top and have European football to look forward to. But surely playing against the best players week in, week out would be more of a lure? Perhaps not... perhaps he wants to stay close to home... perhaps he's concerned we'll get tonked every week. Who knows??

I would be surprised if Klose isn't on something more like 30 or 40k! Or at least had been. He was signed for quite a lot of money and in the times when we were giving out silly contracts! I'd also wager that a number of our rising stars are also on good money now after signing the new contracts. The youth players don't get a huge amount as a rule so they've proven their worth and now they get rewarded. I would say that with Turnbull, he'll be on around 13-15k if we can get it done. I am not surprised that he wasn't on a huge amount at Motherwell, but he obviously feels he's worth more. Celtic agreed and I reckon we agree too.

One thing I did feel was quite bonkers was the huge wage increase he was (apparently) offered by Celtic. He was on £600 a week at Motherwell. Celtic offered £12,000 a week and he still didn't take it as he wants more and his agent felt they could get it in England...