Cantwell Speaks Out Norwich / Webber / Farke / Smith

[A Load of Squit 5,184]

57 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Am I just being a pedant, but can someone please explain what "immensely close" means - or is Connor just taking the **** out of Todd?

Immensely Close is just around the corner from Letsby Avenue.

 

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

15 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Yep, and Cantwell leaves on a virtually free transfer.

It's all very well being ruthless and stubborn as long as you don't shoot yourself in the foot further down the line.

If you do shoot your self in the foot that’s too bad. You can’t have players telling management to do one.

[komakino 272]

On 17/10/2023 at 10:38, chicken said:

I would agree, but Cantwell had lost a close family member. A very rudimentary understanding of psychology, that most people have, tends to give you understanding that bereavement can see people behave in a way outside of their usual persona.

Obviously there are two sides to every story but it certainly doesn't help with the club's much praised mental health campaigns.

I'm probably quite old school in this. The law of averages means that many footballers or sportsmen in general over the years have lost people close to them. But you have to get on with it. Todd was paid an extremely high amount that many of us will never see and for that, you have to have a high mental strength. Big money, big characters. Asking for 'a couple of weeks off' like a High School kid would not have been tolerated at many clubs. Norwich City to be fair gave him that time out, but it wasn't a free pass. 

I liked the guy, but I got sick of his cryptic BS on social media he continually played the victim. In 10 years time he may look at things differently, but the only person who can be held responsible is not Webber, Farke, Smith or whoever but Todd himself. He isn't the first talented youngster not to fulfil his potential and he won't be the last. 

He's like Danny Mills in reverse. 

 

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, komakino said:

I'm probably quite old school in this. The law of averages means that many footballers or sportsmen in general over the years have lost people close to them. But you have to get on with it. Todd was paid an extremely high amount that many of us will never see and for that, you have to have a high mental strength. Big money, big characters. Asking for 'a couple of weeks off' like a High School kid would not have been tolerated at many clubs. Norwich City to be fair gave him that time out, but it wasn't a free pass. 

I liked the guy, but I got sick of his cryptic BS on social media he continually played the victim. In 10 years time he may look at things differently, but the only person who can be held responsible is not Webber, Farke, Smith or whoever but Todd himself. He isn't the first talented youngster not to fulfil his potential and he won't be the last. 

He's like Danny Mills in reverse. 

 

When he came back he wanted to play. He stated that the Club wanted to banish him to the under 23's. Of course the Club could have been right about that but, if so,  a little bit of nurturing wouldn't have gone amiss from both a human and financial perspective.

[chicken 2,636]

6 hours ago, komakino said:

I'm probably quite old school in this. The law of averages means that many footballers or sportsmen in general over the years have lost people close to them. But you have to get on with it. Todd was paid an extremely high amount that many of us will never see and for that, you have to have a high mental strength. Big money, big characters. Asking for 'a couple of weeks off' like a High School kid would not have been tolerated at many clubs. Norwich City to be fair gave him that time out, but it wasn't a free pass. 

I liked the guy, but I got sick of his cryptic BS on social media he continually played the victim. In 10 years time he may look at things differently, but the only person who can be held responsible is not Webber, Farke, Smith or whoever but Todd himself. He isn't the first talented youngster not to fulfil his potential and he won't be the last. 

He's like Danny Mills in reverse.

That's not old school, that's rubbish.

Each generation of footballers has taught the sporting world lessons they should learn from. And ones often reflected upon but not always acted upon. They are only human, and you certainly don't want robots. Most of the flair players require "handling", as others have said, Ferguson's biggest strength was arguably handling the likes of Cantona, Beckham, Keane, and a host of others with strong personalities that demanded different sorts of treatments along with the younger players coming through who needed some protection from that and space to grow.

To think that we are a good decade on from that at least says all you need to know. Otherwise, Gascoigne was a generational talent poorly handled and look at him now. Look back at Euro 96 and consider he was 31 and arguably could have had two more tournaments in him but was playing for lofty Rangers then and his mental health was already problematic. You could probably argue the same thing about George Best, though he was probably the first of the "rock and roll" footballers, so he was something different to the then norm.

Either way, even the toughest of men can be impacted by mental health and losing a close family relative. If your response is "you are paid a sh!t ton of money so man the fook up!" you're not being old school, it just isn't the right attitude to have towards it what so ever. 

[chicken 2,636]

Also, for the record keepers, can I have it noted that this is me being unhappy with the club for not dealing with this better (club being the footballing side including Webber and Farke and the coaches at the time, and possibly others for allowing this to happen) if things were as they have been painted by Cantwell.

Just so those who think I have blind faith or whatever can stand corrected. Not the first time mind you, but just making a point.

 

[chicken 2,636]

8 hours ago, essex canary said:

100 per cent correct.

Pity that you didn't agree with the same logic concerning a young supporter I endeavoured to assist in similar circumstances. 

Different situations.

You wanted something for someone you knew because you felt they deserved something and demanded it of the club.

Cantwell was an employee of the club and as such the club had a duty of care towards him. Like I say, if I had send a member of staff off to another department because they had had an outburst whilst still grieving a loved one, I would be reprimanded at least. I suspect it would actually be viewed as bullying.

Where you don't seem to understand difference is that whilst I am sure in principle the club would have loved to have been able to give such a gesture as a free season ticket to a bereaved family member, you cannot deny the precedent it could set. Whilst I get that there are not 25k members of individual families at games (as family groups often get season tickets together), you can imagine the logistical nightmare of handing out even casual free tickets for a single game en masse to grieving families... one family could have tens if not hundreds of grieving members. It just isn't an even realistic ask.

Should age be a factor? Maybe? Maybe not. I lost my grandfather at age 12, did I feel his loss as hard as my mum - no, because he raised her and she knew him for 72yrs. They shared more memories. They had more of a life together. Would the gesture have meant more to me or her?  It opens up all sorts of debates and just simply isn't even close to being the same.

Of course, you want it to be, probably in some attempt to point score. Again, business has to be cold and hard at times. That said, I know the club does reach out to people in those situations, I have had friends have flowers and balloons hand delivered by ex players when particularly tragic events occur.

Edited October 18, 2023 by chicken

[lake district canary 4,539]

Having listened to the podcast in full, I think it makes understanding his situation at Norwich much clearer.

He trusted his agent when he was younger - because he felt there was no-one else he could trust. He then went on to say later that he understood that agents might not be totally interested in him, but more the amount of money they could make.

It was totally clear at the time (to me at any rate) that when all the young players signed contracts and he didn't, that his agent was stalling and demanding more - and even at that time it felt that Todd was being badly advised.  If your agent is causing problems to the club, as a young player it must be hard to know what to do - as he said - he had no-one else he could trust.  The seeds of his non-relationship with Webber must have started there - and as we all know, if there is no communication, then relationships can quickly go sour longer term.

Footballing wise, the going to see Farke the day before a match was - as he said - a mistake - but it was a big mistake - and it was around that time that Farke made the "he is 23 now" comment, indicating he thought Todd should be a bit more grown up. So he burnt his bridges with Farke - as others had before like Lietner, who once he crossed a line, never featured again (apart from a couple of subs if I remember rightly). You step out of the group and you step out if the team - and he should have known that.

Yes, there was the personal situation, then the fans getting on his back etc etc which added to the difficult footballing situation, which added together made him fall out of love with football - and it is totally understandable, but he does at least show in this interview that he accepts, or realises, that some of it was his fault.

I thought he came across well in this interview and it takes away some of my annoyance at what happened over his time here......but to me it was clearly a two way process - partly the club at fault and partly himself that were at fault. Imo, mainly what he needed as a young player coming through was better advice.

[king canary 7,623]

15 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Having listened to the podcast in full, I think it makes understanding his situation at Norwich much clearer.

He trusted his agent when he was younger - because he felt there was no-one else he could trust. He then went on to say later that he understood that agents might not be totally interested in him, but more the amount of money they could make.

It was totally clear at the time (to me at any rate) that when all the young players signed contracts and he didn't, that his agent was stalling and demanding more - and even at that time it felt that Todd was being badly advised.  If your agent is causing problems to the club, as a young player it must be hard to know what to do - as he said - he had no-one else he could trust.  The seeds of his non-relationship with Webber must have started there - and as we all know, if there is no communication, then relationships can quickly go sour longer term.

Footballing wise, the going to see Farke the day before a match was - as he said - a mistake - but it was a big mistake - and it was around that time that Farke made the "he is 23 now" comment, indicating he thought Todd should be a bit more grown up. So he burnt his bridges with Farke - as others had before like Lietner, who once he crossed a line, never featured again (apart from a couple of subs if I remember rightly). You step out of the group and you step out if the team - and he should have known that.

Yes, there was the personal situation, then the fans getting on his back etc etc which added to the difficult footballing situation, which added together made him fall out of love with football - and it is totally understandable, but he does at least show in this interview that he accepts, or realises, that some of it was his fault.

I thought he came across well in this interview and it takes away some of my annoyance at what happened over his time here......but to me it was clearly a two way process - partly the club at fault and partly himself that were at fault. Imo, mainly what he needed as a young player coming through was better advice.

This feels like the fairest summary I've seen. I've seen plenty claiming he doesn't take any responsibility but it sounds like he acknowledges he made mistakes along the way, as did the club and especially Webber.

[Robert N. LiM 4,421]

My instinct on this stuff is that Todd has always been a man (or boy) more sinned against than sinning.

[Petriix 2,847]

I imagine many (if not most) professional footballers are a bit of a [insert choice of derogatory profanity here]. Ultimately it's down to the club and the manager to... manage; their egos, agents, wage demands etc.. In this case it was a bit of a failure because we missed out on either cashing in on or playing one of our better players.

Really I think it's a microcosm of a bigger issue with how the playing squad was managed which saw our wages spiral while the quality deteriorated. Imagine how much better things could have been if we'd just given Todd the wages he was after rather than spaffing all that money on Rashica's salary. 

[essex canary 497]

18 hours ago, chicken said:

Different situations.

You wanted something for someone you knew because you felt they deserved something and demanded it of the club.

Cantwell was an employee of the club and as such the club had a duty of care towards him. 

Where you don't seem to understand difference is that whilst I am sure in principle the club would have loved to have been able to give such a gesture as a free season ticket to a bereaved family member, you cannot deny the precedent it could .
 

So the Club doesn't have a duty of care to a supporter and/or shareholder?

Dealing with an issue sensitively regardless of the outcome - which they didn't - shouldn’t really be a big ask when amongst the top 50 shareholders even leaving aside the outcome.

Why I wanted it for the person in question was simply that I didn't think my friends family should be disadvantaged because I was alive and he wasn't. Also that the act of doing what they did implies that males in their 60's will be treated more favourably than females in their 30's. I didn't think that was part of the ethos of our Football Club but clearly I got it wrong.

[Nuff Said 5,147]

57 minutes ago, essex canary said:

So the Club doesn't have a duty of care to a supporter and/or shareholder?

No, they don’t. It’s a very different relationship to that with an employer - there is no legal contract in place with a supporter, and little with a shareholder. You could argue that they have some responsibility, but that is very different from a duty.

But then anyone who wasn’t weighed down by a chip on their shoulder the size of Carrow Road could see that.

[chicken 2,636]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

So the Club doesn't have a duty of care to a supporter and/or shareholder?

Dealing with an issue sensitively regardless of the outcome - which they didn't - shouldn’t really be a big ask when amongst the top 50 shareholders even leaving aside the outcome.

Why I wanted it for the person in question was simply that I didn't think my friends family should be disadvantaged because I was alive and he wasn't. Also that the act of doing what they did implies that males in their 60's will be treated more favourably than females in their 30's. I didn't think that was part of the ethos of our Football Club but clearly I got it wrong.

Simply put, no. They have a duty of care to people whilst they are at the ground, whether that be the restaurants, shops, for games or for other events. That only extends to whilst people are there. Hence they need first aiders -  same as other industries.

Outside of the stadium, Colney, or their grounds in general (The Nest, Carrow Park etc), that duty stops. It's also a different duty. It's a duty to customers to ensure they are safe.

I have, at pains, explained to you before that the relationship with shareholders is not the same at all, and generally, in the world of shareholding, doesn't give you a closer connection to the business/company you hold shares in. Especially if you are not active. And by that I mean, involved with the company on a day to day basis. This is because there may well be shareholders who are abroad and have less of a day to day involvement in the club, or don't want one and see it simply as an investment.

So again, the realm of shareholding is not just straight forward. This is a line you have blurred before, trying to suggest that "community club" means the shareholders as well. It can, but it doesn't directly refer to them. The short of it is that they would have to decide what level of shareholding deserves that sort of response. Is it size of shares, longevity of being a shareholder... It's a hornets nest. And why just shareholders? There are non shareholders - some on here - who have done a lot for this club and the community the club is part of and wouldn't get the sort of recognition.

Shareholding simply isn't what you are wanting it to be, nor has it ever been. It may well be that our club has been generous with it's shareholders in the past, but in the world of shares, it's actually a rarity. And you certainly should never get angry that such generosity may at some point, be rescinded. It is never a given that it would occur in the first instance. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by chicken

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

Very well put chicken.

The problem with Kevin our bean counter from Essex is that with him it seems to be all ‘ take ‘ and no ‘ give ‘. Outside of family I do wonder if he’s ever truly given anything away without there being something in it for him. I don’t mean always in a monetary sense. I just can’t shake off the feeling he would always expect at least some sort of recognition.

Maybe he can prove me wrong.

[Monty13 2,235]

8 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Having listened to the podcast in full, I think it makes understanding his situation at Norwich much clearer.

He trusted his agent when he was younger - because he felt there was no-one else he could trust. He then went on to say later that he understood that agents might not be totally interested in him, but more the amount of money they could make.

It was totally clear at the time (to me at any rate) that when all the young players signed contracts and he didn't, that his agent was stalling and demanding more - and even at that time it felt that Todd was being badly advised.  If your agent is causing problems to the club, as a young player it must be hard to know what to do - as he said - he had no-one else he could trust.  The seeds of his non-relationship with Webber must have started there - and as we all know, if there is no communication, then relationships can quickly go sour longer term.

Footballing wise, the going to see Farke the day before a match was - as he said - a mistake - but it was a big mistake - and it was around that time that Farke made the "he is 23 now" comment, indicating he thought Todd should be a bit more grown up. So he burnt his bridges with Farke - as others had before like Lietner, who once he crossed a line, never featured again (apart from a couple of subs if I remember rightly). You step out of the group and you step out if the team - and he should have known that.

Yes, there was the personal situation, then the fans getting on his back etc etc which added to the difficult footballing situation, which added together made him fall out of love with football - and it is totally understandable, but he does at least show in this interview that he accepts, or realises, that some of it was his fault.

I thought he came across well in this interview and it takes away some of my annoyance at what happened over his time here......but to me it was clearly a two way process - partly the club at fault and partly himself that were at fault. Imo, mainly what he needed as a young player coming through was better advice.

That’s a fair take and I agree with it. However Todd’s lost some career momentum and the clubs lost a huge amount of money. No one won out of this. I can’t help believing that the older cooler heads should have done better.

[shefcanary 2,426]

15 hours ago, chicken said:

Outside of the stadium, Colney, or their grounds in general (The Nest, Carrow Park etc), that duty stops. It's also a different duty. It's a duty to customers to ensure they are safe.

Not entirely true Chicken.

Clubs have to negotiate with the local police force over officer cover outside the ground as well as inside the ground, which has to meet FA and EFL expectations. If the local force say they believe they have to employ extra officers outside the ground purely because of what is happening inside the ground, the club automatically gets billed a share of the extra cost by that force and have little room to avoid them. Hence a reduce visible presence of officers inside the ground nowadays.

Clubs also have to meet obligations over traffic control around their ground's environs on match days.

Not disagreeing with anything else you said mind. 

[hogesar 9,704]

15 hours ago, Monty13 said:

That’s a fair take and I agree with it. However Todd’s lost some career momentum and the clubs lost a huge amount of money. No one won out of this. I can’t help believing that the older cooler heads should have done better.

Yes, that's fair.

I'm sure Todd wasn't easy to deal with, but he's far from the most difficult footballer in history.

You would think, had we ever got to a point of remaining in the prem for a few years, inevitably both Webber and Farke would have had to deal with bigger ego's, personalities, and ruthless agents than Todd and his agent.

Perhaps a learning curve for all of Webber, Farke and Todd.

[essex canary 497]

19 hours ago, chicken said:

Simply put, no. They have a duty of care to people whilst they are at the ground, whether that be the restaurants, shops, for games or for other events. That only extends to whilst people are there. Hence they need first aiders -  same as other industries.

Outside of the stadium, Colney, or their grounds in general (The Nest, Carrow Park etc), that duty stops. It's also a different duty. It's a duty to customers to ensure they are safe.

I have, at pains, explained to you before that the relationship with shareholders is not the same at all, and generally, in the world of shareholding, doesn't give you a closer connection to the business/company you hold shares in. Especially if you are not active. And by that I mean, involved with the company on a day to day basis. This is because there may well be shareholders who are abroad and have less of a day to day involvement in the club, or don't want one and see it simply as an investment.

So again, the realm of shareholding is not just straight forward. This is a line you have blurred before, trying to suggest that "community club" means the shareholders as well. It can, but it doesn't directly refer to them. The short of it is that they would have to decide what level of shareholding deserves that sort of response. Is it size of shares, longevity of being a shareholder... It's a hornets nest. And why just shareholders? There are non shareholders - some on here - who have done a lot for this club and the community the club is part of and wouldn't get the sort of recognition.

Shareholding simply isn't what you are wanting it to be, nor has it ever been. It may well be that our club has been generous with it's shareholders in the past, but in the world of shares, it's actually a rarity. And you certainly should never get angry that such generosity may at some point, be rescinded. It is never a given that it would occur in the first instance. 

Let's remember this quote from the first Annual Report of the Delia and Michael era:

'We see rhe shareholder initiative as part of our on-going policy of taking the Club back to it's supporters'.

Have they reneged upon it? If so exactly when?

[norfolkngood 1,087]

i have mixed emotions about Todd , 

first saw him at colney tiny boy but amazing skills above the other kids , my nephew played in same team ,

All the talk was he will be city's big money transfer he will be worth xyz 

just cast your mind back to when you were 13/14 could you handle that ? 

i know i couldn't have , he was easily upset then when things didn't go the team's way 

Todd like we all know can be a very good footballer ,

he can have a great career in Glasgow New house ,new area to explore plenty of money , New bars big city adoring fans 

play in europe win some trophies maybe even get a bigger move  ,

but that is only by playing good football not talking rubbish and on social media ,

i hope one day he turns off his social media and podcasts etc it never ends well and never makes him look good 

[chicken 2,636]

9 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Not entirely true Chicken.

Clubs have to negotiate with the local police force over officer cover outside the ground as well as inside the ground, which has to meet FA and EFL expectations. If the local force say they believe they have to employ extra officers outside the ground purely because of what is happening inside the ground, the club automatically gets billed a share of the extra cost by that force and have little room to avoid them. Hence a reduce visible presence of officers inside the ground nowadays.

Clubs also have to meet obligations over traffic control around their ground's environs on match days.

Not disagreeing with anything else you said mind. 

Yes, indeed, I guess I overlooked that somewhat. There is certainly a shared role on matchdays with partnership agencies. 

[chicken 2,636]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

Let's remember this quote from the first Annual Report of the Delia and Michael era:

'We see rhe shareholder initiative as part of our on-going policy of taking the Club back to it's supporters'.

Have they reneged upon it? If so exactly when?

As I said, this is not part of being a shareholder. It was or is generosity above that which the club or joint majority shareholders wished to reward shareholders at that time.

Again, as I mentioned, this doesn't mean that shareholders get extra benefits not part of the initiative. Equally, was it ever said that this was a permanent initiative?

You see the issue here, again, is that you are trying to convolute in an attempt to try and gather more weight for your argument.

Is is the initiative or the lack of it still being in place that angers you, or the denial of your request? 

The policy of taking the club back to it's supporters wasn't limited to the shareholding initiative, the initiative was part of the policy. And again, even if fans did take it up, there will have been those who were not fans who may also have done so. After all, the new joint majority shareholders cannot be described as having been fans.

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

As I said, this is not part of being a shareholder. It was or is generosity above that which the club or joint majority shareholders wished to reward shareholders at that time.

Again, as I mentioned, this doesn't mean that shareholders get extra benefits not part of the initiative. Equally, was it ever said that this was a permanent initiative?

You see the issue here, again, is that you are trying to convolute in an attempt to try and gather more weight for your argument.

Is is the initiative or the lack of it still being in place that angers you, or the denial of your request? 

The policy of taking the club back to it's supporters wasn't limited to the shareholding initiative, the initiative was part of the policy. And again, even if fans did take it up, there will have been those who were not fans who may also have done so. After all, the new joint majority shareholders cannot be described as having been fans.

Doesn't 'ongoing policy' suggest 'permanence'?

Interesting that Delia was still proclaiming the 20% minority shareholding recently as desirable fan involvement. But the reality is that it only constitutes such a thing  if it is a living breathing initiative that goes beyond inheritance as a means of continuance and refreshment. Just an opinion that the proclamation means more than the reality.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Doesn't 'ongoing policy' suggest 'permanence'?

Interesting that Delia was still proclaiming the 20% minority shareholding recently as desirable fan involvement. But the reality is that it only constitutes such a thing  if it is a living breathing initiative that goes beyond inheritance as a means of continuance and refreshment. Just an opinion that the proclamation means more than the reality.

How on earth have you managed to make this thread about you and shares?

Back on topic - Chris Sutton doesn't appear to be impressed.

[Sufyellow 222]

On 17/10/2023 at 21:08, hogesar said:

Well, it's DF who was in charge during his loss of a family member and everything that made him decide he wanted to leave us. From Smiths view, he came in to a Cantwell who told him he didn't want to be here.

Yet started him first game and took him off at half time. He said he had a good relationship with Farke. If you are honest and strict you can still be liked. Todd knew how Farke worked and knew he over stepped the mark, he excepts it was his fault. I expect he trusted Farke to be honest,  probably something he didn't find with Webber.  

[Sufyellow 222]

On 17/10/2023 at 21:53, YellowSubmarine said:

Webber only had a relationship with the leadership team, which Was Hanley, Tettey, Krul and Mclean.  He left the other players to be managed by the manager, like they are supposed to be.
 

McLean got the new contract because Leeds offered 4m and better wages, ball in players court to say I want an extra year and more money or I’m off. 

Should webber have had a relationship with any of them? Surely that was Farkes job. That could Surely undermine Farke and cause unrest among other players. Those players were no more prem class than anyone else..

[Sufyellow 222]

On 17/10/2023 at 21:58, Monty13 said:

This. It also in football has the added issue of your employees being assets. Not managing them incorrectly isn’t just poor leadership, it’s financially irresponsible.

Not easy is it , but also building a team without stars and getting to the prem has its rewards.  We definitely aren't a club with stars , so team players mean every thing . 

[Sufyellow 222]

On 18/10/2023 at 14:24, komakino said:

I'm probably quite old school in this. The law of averages means that many footballers or sportsmen in general over the years have lost people close to them. But you have to get on with it. Todd was paid an extremely high amount that many of us will never see and for that, you have to have a high mental strength. Big money, big characters. Asking for 'a couple of weeks off' like a High School kid would not have been tolerated at many clubs. Norwich City to be fair gave him that time out, but it wasn't a free pass. 

I liked the guy, but I got sick of his cryptic BS on social media he continually played the victim. In 10 years time he may look at things differently, but the only person who can be held responsible is not Webber, Farke, Smith or whoever but Todd himself. He isn't the first talented youngster not to fulfil his potential and he won't be the last. 

He's like Danny Mills in reverse. 

 

Some people cope differently,  but I give you the legend Mr Brian Gunn.  He brought a club together and pushed us all on . 

[Sufyellow 222]

On 18/10/2023 at 21:09, chicken said:

Also, for the record keepers, can I have it noted that this is me being unhappy with the club for not dealing with this better (club being the footballing side including Webber and Farke and the coaches at the time, and possibly others for allowing this to happen) if things were as they have been painted by Cantwell.

Just so those who think I have blind faith or whatever can stand corrected. Not the first time mind you, but just making a point.

 

You seem to missing out the bit where he said he went to the manager which he knew was a mistake,  sounds like he knew he was over stepping the mark , he goes on to say he had a good relationship with Farke.  My guess would be he respected Farke and was treated no different to anyone else, I expect Farke was there for him. Its a real struggle trying to manage young men. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

12 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

Some people cope differently,  but I give you the legend Mr Brian Gunn.  He brought a club together and pushed us all on . 

wow yes i remember that well kissed a lock of her hair before ever game ? 

such a sad time for the family