Jump to content

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

If Newcastle offer £30m for Aarons does anyone actually think we would turn it down? Of course they wouldn't. 

I hope so. 

One of our direct relegation rivals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

I ****ing hate modern football. The Premier League is corrupt as ****. They need this constant flow of external wealth to be poured into Premier League clubs so they can stay ahead of the arms race. More money in the Premier League means the majority of the world's best players ply their trade in it. This means that it holds greater global appeal in the Chinese, African and Indian markets, meaning even more money. They cannot achieve this dominance of foreign TV audiences over La Liga and Bundesliga legitimately, it requires money even if it's dirty…..

And some other really good stuff….

Football is ****ing ****.

Well said that man- I agree entirely, it’s pretty much where I am at the moment also. I can see little point in us being part of the s***-show in our present guise, we’re not wanted as we’re not box office enough for the PL or their media promotors and we can’t compete in any case. I’m someone who steadfastly refused to have Sky from Day 1 of the PL. It was obvious where the ultimate destination was going to be- greed corrupts and here we now are. The ESL can’t come quick enough- the so called ‘(now) big 7’ can f*** off and try to emulate the madness of Barcelona and their £408m/yr losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

If Newcastle offer £30m for Aarons does anyone actually think we would turn it down? Of course they wouldn't. 

The question would be moot until Aarons was asked if he would be willing to play for Newcastle United.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Beetley Yellow said:

Well said that man- I agree entirely, it’s pretty much where I am at the moment also. I can see little point in us being part of the s***-show in our present guise, we’re not wanted as we’re not box office enough for the PL or their media promotors and we can’t compete in any case. I’m someone who steadfastly refused to have Sky from Day 1 of the PL. It was obvious where the ultimate destination was going to be- greed corrupts and here we now are. The ESL can’t come quick enough- the so called ‘(now) big 7’ can f*** off and try to emulate the madness of Barcelona and their £408m/yr losses.

I don't understand the backlash against the ESL. It could have been the best thing to have happened to domestic football. The big clubs are a tumour on the game that need to be removed so the rest can survive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Nonsense! Countries take sanctions against other countries all the time without waiting for the difficult bureaucratic process of the declaration of UN sanctions. Try reading the link for once and you will discover several countries have indeed already taken sanctions against SA (including the UK). I suggest you do a few seconds research.

Its quite obvious that any country can take sanctions against any other country. But when an organisation such as the UN takes an interest, to the point of investigating and reporting, then they should be taking the lead here.  From what you've posted the response from the UNs investigation is to have another investigation. Not good enough. I hope you agree. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

I don't understand the backlash against the ESL. It could have been the best thing to have happened to domestic football. The big clubs are a tumour on the game that need to be removed so the rest can survive.

But the ESL plan did not involve the  clubs leaving their domestic leagues. They intended the ESL matches to be played midweek so they could stay in the EPL, La Liga etc. In effect it was their replacement for the Champions League.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

The question would be moot until Aarons was asked if he would be willing to play for Newcastle United.

i imagine he would leave for Newcastle to be part of a Exciting Project and also around 80k a week 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

i imagine he would leave for Newcastle to be part of a Exciting Project and also around 80k a week 

I have no idea either way, but it would first be his decision before there was any decision for the club to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

But the ESL plan did not involve the  clubs leaving their domestic leagues. They intended the ESL matches to be played midweek so they could stay in the EPL, La Liga etc. In effect it was their replacement for the Champions League.

They could plan as much as they'd like, there was no way on God's green earth that would've been permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

i imagine he would leave for Newcastle to be part of a Exciting Project and also around 80k a week 

We don't know if Max Aarons has a more moral view on life than lots on here though, do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sgncfc said:

NB Someone on here said that the wealthiest owners get all the best players and win everything.

I think that was Naturalcynic. Judging by his track record when he says that "the wealthiest owners get all of the best players and win everything," he doesn't mean "the wealthiest owners get all of the best players and win everything," but something else completely but vaguely related (or not) and it is pedantic of you to think that he meant what he said!

Many owners of championship teams are wealthier than owners of EPL clubs.

r/Championship - Estimated wealth of owners of EFL Championship clubs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Badger said:

I think that was Naturalcynic. Judging by his track record when he says that "the wealthiest owners get all of the best players and win everything," he doesn't mean "the wealthiest owners get all of the best players and win everything," but something else completely but vaguely related (or not) and it is pedantic of you to think that he meant what he said!

Many owners of championship teams are wealthier than owners of EPL clubs.

r/Championship - Estimated wealth of owners of EFL Championship clubs.

Still trolling me I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, hogesar said:

We don't know if Max Aarons has a more moral view on life than lots on here though, do we?

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh you were being serious. I’m sure there a loads of people who on being offered 4 x their current salary would turn that down based on their morals. No really…

Edited by Virtual reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max can see that the Canary ship is sinking and he won't want to go down with it again.

 

Top marks for his loyalty. A special lad who deserves the great career that beckons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh you were being serious. I’m sure there a loads of people who on being offered 4 x their current salary would turn that down based on their morals. No really…

Different people, different financial situations. I know one particular very wealthy individual who has regularly turned down significant sums of money purely based on morals.

I'm not saying that's the case for Max, but it could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Different people, different financial situations. I know one particular very wealthy individual who has regularly turned down significant sums of money purely based on morals.

I'm not saying that's the case for Max, but it could be.

So where are we drawing the moral line in the sand? It’s a very hard world to navigate morally if we’re to take issue with all of the very many problems that we should be morally outraged over. For starters if he wears branded boots like Nike or Adidas then we’re off to a really poor start morally 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I don’t remember much (any) outcry regarding any perceived abandonment of morality when sub-prime loan brokers the Turners stuck a few quid in. 🤷‍♂️

No, but it is really quite a stretch to compare the owners of a legal if slightly questionable business with an autocratic regime with a proven record of appalling human rights abuses.

The whatabout-where-do-you-draw-the-line argument over morality is usually (although not in every case) put forward by people who have no interest in drawing a moral line anywhere and so have to denigrate those who do.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Still trolling me I see.

No just pointing out that you never stick by what you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No, but it is really quite a stretch to compare the owners of a legal if slightly questionable business with an autocratic regime with a proven record of appalling human rights abuses.

The whatabout-where-do-you-draw-the-line argument over morality is usually (although not in every case) put forward by people who have no interest in drawing a moral line anywhere and so have to denigrate those who do.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh you were being serious as well… As long as we’re all aware that nearly every product we own or item of clothing we wear has a questionable morality about it somewhere along the line then we can all agree that we’re all hypocrites 

Edited by Virtual reality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

No, but it is really quite a stretch to compare the owners of a legal if slightly questionable business with an autocratic regime with a proven record of appalling human rights abuses.

The whatabout-where-do-you-draw-the-line argument over morality is usually (although not in every case) put forward by people who have no interest in drawing a moral line anywhere and so have to denigrate those who do.

It’s a stretch, sure. But when you’ve seen the damage that those products did to people first hand, when you’ve opened the envelopes containing their house keys and when you’ve seen the insurance premiums they added to peoples 25 year mortgage for a 5 year cover and seen the interest that they’ll pay, when you’ve seen the 100% interest-only mortgages with a repayment vehicle of “their parents dying”, when you’ve seen the consolidation loans to people with dreadful credit history then to just hand them the cash rather than actually pay off the debts and then see them applying again in a matter of months to clear the same debts plus more only to decline them etc etc etc

No, they might not be as appalling as the human rights abuses but, I can assure you, the impact that their practices had on many people was God awful.

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t want us to have anything to do with a takeover like this. I was merely pointing out that we’d had some murky money before. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/10/2021 at 12:11, canarydan23 said:

I ****ing hate modern football. The Premier League is corrupt as ****. They need this constant flow of external wealth to be poured into Premier League clubs so they can stay ahead of the arms race. More money in the Premier League means the majority of the world's best players ply their trade in it. This means that it holds greater global appeal in the Chinese, African and Indian markets, meaning even more money. They cannot achieve this dominance of foreign TV audiences over La Liga and Bundesliga legitimately, it requires money even if it's dirty.

I've said it before, it's why a club like Norwich, trying to do things properly, will never be permitted to establish themselves in the Premier League, because it may deter wealthy investors pouring hundreds of millions of pounds into transfer kittys and wage budgets. If little old Norwich can get established without forking out £100,000 a week on half a dozen players, then why should the owners of Leicester? Before you know it, the wages start to drop and the big names eventually start to migrate to different countries and the EPL global appeal drops along with the TV audiences and revenues.

So, wave in the journalist-murdering Saudis, ignore the human-rights violations (including against British citizens) perpetrated by Man City's heralded owners, laugh off Abramovich funding vile right-wing Israeli group Elad, allow our once proud football clubs that used to be community institutions to simply becomes tools for global money-laundering. Who cares? We get to see Ronaldo, de Bruyne and Salah plying their trade within these shores.

It's a ****fest or corruption. A plaything of an immoral global elite. It's closer to WWE than grassroots football in what constitutes an actual sport.

If there was literally anything else from a sporting perspective within walking distance of my house that I could watch whilst enjoying a bit of atmosphere, I'd be turning my back on the whole ****ed up spectacle.

Football is ****ing ****.

Take a bow!   You couldn't be more spot on.    Its why any decent Norwich fan will support our process and be proud through the good and the current difficulty!     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2021 at 12:50, 1902 said:

Which is where it's got stupid. We have now got to the state whereby a football club is owned by such a horrendous state via its sovereign wealth fund, that we now need to have that moral debate. It's ridiculous, and it was started when the FA allowed the Man City sale and has just got worse.

Then we have the absurdity of people trying to protect the Saudi regime because they are so keen on the idea of a buyout here that they will try to whitewash anyone with money so that they can continue to claim that a big investor would make Norwich city a better club to support. 

Additionally, we have Newcastle fans, who had a crap owner in Ashley, genuinely thinking this is better. Is Mike Ashley a nice man, not really. Is he a monster, not by the standards of the dear crown prince of The House of Saud.

However the prospect of buying a title is so appealing, that some of them are now pretending that paying **** wages at Sports Direct is tantamount to murder, where misogynistic, homophobic actual murderers are the Messiah. 

It's grim, and it's taking a sport I love and dragging it into a geopolitical and moral gutter that I never thought it would be. It's killing my love for the game.

You and CanaryDan have put together some decent posts here, fair play, totally agree also..... To think that some complete tool could call this tripe!    Dear oh dear.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Virtual reality said:

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh you were being serious as well… As long as we’re all aware that nearly every product we own or item of clothing we wear has a questionable morality about it somewhere along the line then we can all agree that we’re all hypocrites 

Anyone who tries to turn complex, nuanced positions into a black and white, good/bad argument is either an idiot or a liar with an unspoken agenda. Both in Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson‘s case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Anyone who tries to turn complex, nuanced positions into a black and white, good/bad argument is either an idiot or a liar with an unspoken agenda. Both in Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson‘s case.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

It’s a stretch, sure. But when you’ve seen the damage that those products did to people first hand, when you’ve opened the envelopes containing their house keys and when you’ve seen the insurance premiums they added to peoples 25 year mortgage for a 5 year cover and seen the interest that they’ll pay, when you’ve seen the 100% interest-only mortgages with a repayment vehicle of “their parents dying”, when you’ve seen the consolidation loans to people with dreadful credit history then to just hand them the cash rather than actually pay off the debts and then see them applying again in a matter of months to clear the same debts plus more only to decline them etc etc etc

No, they might not be as appalling as the human rights abuses but, I can assure you, the impact that their practices had on many people was God awful.

For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t want us to have anything to do with a takeover like this. I was merely pointing out that we’d had some murky money before. 

 

 

I take that point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...