"Women’s football, I do not watch it. It’s of zero interest"

[Ian 1,136]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

I wonder what those who argued that Bailey wasn’t trying to cause problems think now?  Obvious is obvious. It’s a strange move to try to alienate those at the club.  Some seem to wet themselves whenever the guy is mentioned, but I’m not one of them.

He's a journalist. I have no idea why people would prefer club friendly mouthpieces - I don't think this is an unreasonable story at all.

[hogesar 9,729]

36 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

‘’Good honest answer from a Sporting Director who has been part of actually building the women's side of football for our club. Far more than any predecessor. 

He is completely correct about trying to target a different audience and accepting the poor quality standard at the moment. He said it was exciting but the quality poor. He was spot on.’’

Doesn’t really read like ‘adding balance’ to me. 

I know it's boring but the best thing would be to read all my posts on the topic if you want to be fair about it.

I've said elsewhere he didn't need to say it, I'd have preferred it if he didn't. I also said it didn't bother me personally but others are more than entitled to be bothered by it. Not sure how much fairer I can be? I just don't think he's the devil incarnate. 

[ron obvious 1,514]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I know it's boring but the best thing would be to read all my posts on the topic if you want to be fair about it.

I've said elsewhere he didn't need to say it, I'd have preferred it if he didn't. I also said it didn't bother me personally but others are more than entitled to be bothered by it. Not sure how much fairer I can be? I just don't think he's the devil incarnate. 

I once worked for a rather bullying female boss called Evelyn. Most people referred to her as Mrs. Tent but I preferred to call her Mrs. Carnate.

[canarydan23 4,060]

32 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Problem I have with all of this is that Webber is the same man he was in 2017. He hasn't got worse. 

So what's the end game here. Is it to get him sacked? Would it have been better to sack him after 2017/18?

 

Every manager or sporting director in history was the same person at the end of their tenure as they were when appointed.

Just so weird that any of them get sacked.

It's almost like...I dunno...people can change?

[komakino 274]

35 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Problem I have with all of this is that Webber is the same man he was in 2017. He hasn't got worse. 

So what's the end game here. Is it to get him sacked? Would it have been better to sack him after 2017/18?

 

The difference is he’s reached the limit of his ability and shouldn’t really still be here. Remember his ‘just passing through’ comment as he wanted to work in Europe?

He’s frustrated as the phone isn’t ringing and may never ring as it hasn’t worked out the way it once did. Climbing Kilimanjaro is easier than this self funding nonsense and for that, he has my sympathies. 

[nutty nigel 7,598]

11 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Every manager or sporting director in history was the same person at the end of their tenure as they were when appointed.

Just so weird that any of them get sacked.

It's almost like...I dunno...people can change?

It's just that you were so sure that sacking Smith would turn our season round.

Before that you wanted Farke sacked.

Neither of those made any improvement at all.

So now Webber. How sure are you this time?

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's just that you were so sure that sacking Smith would turn our season round.

Before that you wanted Farke sacked.

Neither of those made any improvement at all.

So now Webber. How sure are you this time?

I didn't want Farke sacked, certainly not after the Brentford game, I often vented straight after matches, but in that little poll thread that got necromanced recently I voted for him to stay.

And you're right, I was sure sacking Smith would improve our season. And it should have. That it didn't is yet another damning indictment on Webber's ability, and evidence that his abilities have undoubtedly diminished.

You also neglect to mention that I said appointing Smith to replace Farke was idiotic and was never likely to improve us.

There's something badly wrong when I have more foresight than Mr Webber.

[nutty nigel 7,598]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

 

There's something badly wrong when I have more foresight than Mr Webber.

I think I'm never so sure about these things because I honestly don't.

I guess I was a half decent bog cleaner and bingo caller but I'm clueless how to do Webber's job.

I trust Delia and Michael though.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

25 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I know it's boring but the best thing would be to read all my posts on the topic if you want to be fair about it.

I've said elsewhere he didn't need to say it, I'd have preferred it if he didn't. I also said it didn't bother me personally but others are more than entitled to be bothered by it. Not sure how much fairer I can be? I just don't think he's the devil incarnate. 

So ‘good honest answer’ and ‘he was spot on’ but you’d prefer he didn’t say it?

And I’m not ignoring your subsequent posts, just not sure how they exactly align with the tone of your first comment…

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

I think I'm never so sure about these things because I honestly don't.

I guess I was a half decent bog cleaner and bingo caller but I'm clueless how to do Webber's job.

I trust Delia and Michael though.

So am I. And even I could see Dean Smith was a bad appointment. All the evidence was there.

Sacking Neil led to Farke.

Sacking Gunn led to Lambert.

McNally leaving (who was the same person during our back to back promotions and Premier League survivals as he was in our relegation season) and binning off Moxey led to Webber.

People being sacked, moved on, pushed to resign can massively improve clubs. It can also not improve them.

Right now, sacking Webber feels like one of those instances that could open up an opportunity for someone to come in and put us back on an upward trajectory, like what happened when he was first appointed.

He's a busted flush, repeated failings in the transfer market, regardless of the rights and wrongs of Farke's sacking he failed in picking his replacement, at the moment, his Smith replacement is a failure, he's lying in interviews and making idiotic comments in interviews that make national news.

Pardon me for thinking it just might be possible for my football club to expect just a little bit better.

[hogesar 9,729]

9 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

So ‘good honest answer’ and ‘he was spot on’ but you’d prefer he didn’t say it?

And I’m not ignoring your subsequent posts, just not sure how they exactly align with the tone of your first comment…

 

You don't think it was honest? I do.

Spot on? Yes, his views on women's football at the moment align with my own.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

You don't think it was honest? I do.

Spot on? Yes, his views on women's football at the moment align with my own.

That’s not my point though. 

If I generally didn’t think Webber’s comments should’ve been stated in the first place, like you say, then I wouldn’t have led by praising his honesty and saying he got it spot on. Maybe your opinion has changed from the first post, which is obviously fair enough.

[nutty nigel 7,598]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

So am I. And even I could see Dean Smith was a bad appointment. All the evidence was there.

Sacking Neil led to Farke.

Sacking Gunn led to Lambert.

McNally leaving (who was the same person during our back to back promotions and Premier League survivals as he was in our relegation season) and binning off Moxey led to Webber.

People being sacked, moved on, pushed to resign can massively improve clubs. It can also not improve them.

Right now, sacking Webber feels like one of those instances that could open up an opportunity for someone to come in and put us back on an upward trajectory, like what happened when he was first appointed.

He's a busted flush, repeated failings in the transfer market, regardless of the rights and wrongs of Farke's sacking he failed in picking his replacement, at the moment, his Smith replacement is a failure, he's lying in interviews and making idiotic comments in interviews that make national news.

Pardon me for thinking it just might be possible for my football club to expect just a little bit better.

'my club'

Come on Dan. What on earth does that mean? Is your club better than my club of Delia and Michael's club?

I don't dislike Webber. Some of the stuff he says I wouldn't say myself. But some of the stuff you say I wouldn't say myself.

If he's the board's choice to carry on you're stuck with him. If they decide to sack him then we will have to hope the new person is as good or better.

It's going to be a long summer if they don't sack him. If they do we have to hope it's Adams because there's no time to tear it up and start again for this summer.

What do you hope for?

[Overrated, over paid 22]

On 20/05/2023 at 12:17, Barbe bleu said:

Several things stand out.  Why emphasise that the standard was poor, "really poor"? He is entitled to that opinion but no one involved in that side of the business is going to thank him for expressing it and it wont help to get the fans in . Its a statement that adds nothing but offends a lot.

Then to repeat that he has "zero interest" snd that he is only helping out as a favour to Flo. Again he is entitled to that opinion (although it is clear he realises that it will be a controversal one when he asks the question more of himself than his audience "which i think should be ok?") But to what end is this statement made.  He is the director of a football club, not a talking head on a provocative radio show. Directors of Warburtons don't give interviews to magazines where they say how much they dislike crumpets so why is Webber saying this?

The ending is pretty patronising too . "They aren't professionals" .." those are memories they'll take to their grave".  That would be more than OK if he had rounded it off with, "and so will the fans" but he made it seem like he felt he was doing these "poor quality" amateurs  a big favour.

It comes across as unhelpful, patronising and narcissistic.  He had an opportunity to publicise a side to the game for which he recognises there is a market (a different market, but a market nonetheless) and he makes it about him and his (90%) reluctance to really commit.

The biggest problem is he is Sporting Director, entirely entitled to his own opinions but in his capacity as a Director this was a car crash statement. Unprofessional,  disrespectful and frankly I'd slam him with a misconduct warning. If the club and investors have anything about them then Webber will be gone very soon. 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

8 hours ago, Overrated, over paid said:

The biggest problem is he is Sporting Director, entirely entitled to his own opinions but in his capacity as a Director this was a car crash statement. Unprofessional,  disrespectful and frankly I'd slam him with a misconduct warning. If the club and investors have anything about them then Webber will be gone very soon. 

Careful, you'll be called woke for having a different opinion... man up😜

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

44 minutes ago, Tzol Machine said:

Im not worried about football. 

Woman are pretty bad at it, the better ones are weirdos, completely unattractive to men. 

Plus real men want their women to be women not tom boys. 

Its a lose lose lose situation.

This crap is only possible because of America's weird policies. Europe has too much tradition and history to be led into this trap. This is why we'll succeed. 

Your are an utter moron. It’s ok not to like women’s football, but the rest of your post is just the ramblings of a disgruntled incel. 

Fortunately your predictions about Tzolis show that your last comment ‘we’ll succeed’ is (like your predictions about Tzolis) going to be proven wrong too. 

You’re an embarrassment 

Edited May 26, 2023 by SwearyCanary

[hogesar 9,729]

2 hours ago, Tzol Machine said:

Im not worried about football. 

Woman are pretty bad at it, the better ones are weirdos, completely unattractive to men. 

Plus real men want their women to be women not tom boys. 

Its a lose lose lose situation.

This crap is only possible because of America's weird policies. Europe has too much tradition and history to be led into this trap. This is why we'll succeed. 

I'm not sure you read the room fantastically well..

[TheGunnShow 5,990]

2 hours ago, Tzol Machine said:

Im not worried about football. 

Woman are pretty bad at it, the better ones are weirdos, completely unattractive to men. 

Plus real men want their women to be women not tom boys. 

Its a lose lose lose situation.

This crap is only possible because of America's weird policies. Europe has too much tradition and history to be led into this trap. This is why we'll succeed. 

Evidence needed for the bits in bold, please.

[Yobocop 1,105]

6 hours ago, Tzol Machine said:

Im not worried about football. 

Woman are pretty bad at it, the better ones are weirdos, completely unattractive to men. 

Plus real men want their women to be women not tom boys. 

Its a lose lose lose situation.

This crap is only possible because of America's weird policies. Europe has too much tradition and history to be led into this trap. This is why we'll succeed. 

Is Tzol Bulgarian for time? Because if it is perhaps you need to get in back in the Tzol Machine and get back to 1970 where your views will potentially be more acceptable 

[TheBaldOne66 697]

If Webber has so much dislike for the womens game, why did he go and watch the game? It had nothing to do with his role at the club at all so he wasn’t forced to be there surely, unless his wife forced him to go, as the whole family were there in the Directors Box 

[essex canary 504]

On 24/05/2023 at 01:20, nutty nigel said:

'my club'

Come on Dan. What on earth does that mean? Is your club better than my club of Delia and Michael's club?

I don't dislike Webber. Some of the stuff he says I wouldn't say myself. But some of the stuff you say I wouldn't say myself.

If he's the board's choice to carry on you're stuck with him. If they decide to sack him then we will have to hope the new person is as good or better.

It's going to be a long summer if they don't sack him. If they do we have to hope it's Adams because there's no time to tear it up and start again for this summer.

What do you hope for?

Adams without the family in tow.

[essex canary 504]

On 24/05/2023 at 07:28, Overrated, over paid said:

The biggest problem is he is Sporting Director, entirely entitled to his own opinions but in his capacity as a Director this was a car crash statement. Unprofessional,  disrespectful and frankly I'd slam him with a misconduct warning. If the club and investors have anything about them then Webber will be gone very soon. 

Dead right. No problem in expressing his personal position re Women's football but the men's game has developed over decades therefore why not look at the Women's game in the same way. His comments about the cost of putting on a Women's game are stupid in relation to how much money he has wasted. The comments about 40-60 year old male drunks likewise.

[pete 320]

If you have nothing useful to say keep your gob shut.  Alright you do not watch women's football, who cares.  Are you just filing the ladies.  Gives opportunities for people to point out you are a pratt.  Well done just shown it confirms what many already believe about you.  Are you preparing the ground for a resignation ? Hope so.

[Monty13 2,247]

On 23/05/2023 at 20:59, Branston Pickle said:

Not at all, even remotely, certainly not from me. I don’t particularly like either Webber or Bailey.  My complaint all along was about context - this is crucial.  If you read what Webber said, properly in context, it has a pretty different ‘flavour’ than if you cherry pick.  By saying what he has here, Bailey has deliberately misused that context.  

If you can’t/don’t see that, that is absolutely your prerogative.

Said this in another thread but I think what was interesting with that article was that it was authored by the UK Athletic Staff, not Bailey. Now maybe he pushed for it, but it read like an Editor had picked up on these comments and wanted a wider reporting of it as a broader than Norwich issue about views of the women's game.

That Athletic article about these specific comments was way more widely viewed and commented on than the one with the full interview. Comments were mainly from non NCFC fans and were not complimentary.

If you say controversial things you have to own it and expect it to get attention. I don’t think in context of the rest of his comments and his position it read much better. Its hardly a stitch up to ask someone about something and get a terrible answer and then share that. The question was completely benign and he chose to go controversial.

[nutty nigel 7,598]

Does The Athletic cover the woman's game?

Does Michael cover the women's team?

After all this fuss you'd hope they would.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by nutty nigel

[CrankyCanary 32]

On 20/05/2023 at 12:15, Ulfotto said:

In context it’s fine but the headline is obvious clickbait. It’s no wonder he has a rocky relationship with the press.

The subtext is that Norwich simple are not going to pump the money into the women’s team. Like say Man City or Chelsea 

I would assume that from a business perspective if the games are financially viable in terms of revenue then we’ll see more of it.

Womens football has a massive future as a mass participation sport for young girls.

It has a massive future from a Financial/Sponsorship perspective as well, and it's starting to show signs.

[CrankyCanary 32]

On 26/05/2023 at 06:09, Tzol Machine said:

Im not worried about football. 

Woman are pretty bad at it, the better ones are weirdos, completely unattractive to men. 

Plus real men want their women to be women not tom boys. 

Its a lose lose lose situation.

This crap is only possible because of America's weird policies. Europe has too much tradition and history to be led into this trap. This is why we'll succeed. 

Jeez.

[Canario 207]

Its a bit mad though isnt it. Go on the sports page of the Guardian today and the top story is Chelsea winning the wsl?!  (Honestly who cares?!)

What are the viewing figures (i.e importance) of WSL and champs?! Playoff final is pretty much the richest game in football, no? And yet there it is hidden away below chelsea womens team. 

Its good to try and get some interest in the womens game but i have no idea why its pushed above leagues that matter far more to far more people.

Never understood why the scots premier table always appears above the championship either. 

 

[Tzol Machine 27]

On 26/05/2023 at 01:53, SwearyCanary said:

Your are an utter moron. It’s ok not to like women’s football, but the rest of your post is just the ramblings of a disgruntled incel. 

Fortunately your predictions about Tzolis show that your last comment ‘we’ll succeed’ is (like your predictions about Tzolis) going to be proven wrong too. 

You’re an embarrassment 

Woman's football is an embarrassment to any society that respect's it self. 

You got offended? This is why you insulted me?

What good does it do to have woman compete and be told they're just as good as men? 

What good does it bring to our society to have man change their sex so they can compete with woman and destroy them?

Tell me what good do you see in woman competing in sports?

Do you enjoy they beating themselfs in a ufc match? 

 

You're a weirdo 

[Tzol Machine 27]

On 26/05/2023 at 07:39, Yobocop said:

Is Tzol Bulgarian for time? Because if it is perhaps you need to get in back in the Tzol Machine and get back to 1970 where your views will potentially be more acceptable 

Hey man Coke is not water, no matter how you want to believe it. If you're thirsty to death you should drink water, in case you had doubts.

Just because woman can kick a ball and run, it doesn't mean they were made to replace us on the field. 

Males are built to fight, defend and protect. Thats true for all spectrum of nature. 

What do you like in woman's football or any other sports any ways? You like watching their ****, legs? What kind of a weirdo are you. 

Family, union, strengh.. thats all that matters. Women are a fundamental part of the family, if they're outside destroying their bodys they cant produce and take care of children.... you weirdo. 

You're here because you had a loving mother and father... perhaps you had some siblings too. 

Families are meant to be large, 4-5 sibblings at least.... this nonsense of 1-2 kids per household that is insane... 

you need to see people, a kid needs a village to grow healthy. 

If your family had your values you would probably not be here today, you weirdo.

What i am saying is part of the foundation of who we are.

 

Smarten up