Never seen a more disgusting article

[cambridgeshire canary 7,798]

🤢

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2024/02/24/an-ipswich-town-promotion-is-essential-for-the-premier-league/

[shefcanary 2,955]

Is that just so pundits can laugh at them next season (it ain't going to happen though).

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,830]

Well yes, these sleeping giants must be up there. The premier League has truly been woeful since one of the most decorated teams in all of the land hasn't been in it. 

What a day it will be when the true rivals to Liverpool and man uniteds claim of being the most successful teams in the country are back up there with them, matching trophy cabinets and laughing at the rest of the small minnows in their big pond. They really are just in another stratosphere to the rest of us. Silverware as far as the eye can see!! 

Amazing. Truly truly amazing. 

More stars are very much on order! 

 

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[The Real Buh 3,765]

We had all this with Leeds it’s pathetic to be honest 

There’s a load of black and white promotional videos, Gary Linekar makes a crap pun and they just ditch them.

The Leeds “back where they belong” hype didn’t even last one season.

[Canario 268]

I think if you asked most fans who "belongs" in the PL and currently aren't in it, the number 1 answer would be Leeds. Leicester, Wednesday,Mackems probably follow. Then soton,us,binners,blackburn,wba, watford etc.

Leeds are a big club. Don't like them but can't deny it.

The binners are a middling, family club who flit around the top two division, much like us. 

[Commonsense 802]

1 hour ago, Canario said:

I think if you asked most fans who "belongs" in the PL and currently aren't in it, the number 1 answer would be Leeds. Leicester, Wednesday,Mackems probably follow. Then soton,us,binners,blackburn,wba, watford etc.

Leeds are a big club. Don't like them but can't deny it.

The binners are a middling, family club who flit around the top two division, much like us. 

They haven’t done much flipping in the last 20 years!

Wednesday are also only a prem team in the minds of a few of their most deluded fans.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,138]

2 hours ago, Canario said:

I think if you asked most fans who "belongs" in the PL and currently aren't in it, the number 1 answer would be Leeds. Leicester, Wednesday,Mackems probably follow. Then soton,us,binners,blackburn,wba, watford etc.

Leeds are a big club. Don't like them but can't deny it.

The binners are a middling, family club who flit around the top two division, much like us. 

Thing is, size of the fan base who goes to games is less of a determining factor in who can survive in the Premier League now, because the contribution of gate receipts to Premier League revenue streams is pitiful. More important is branding, merchandise, and global reach after the TV revenue.

I sometimes wonder, given the resemblance between Norwich shirts and Brazil shirts, whether part of our tilt to Brazilian players isn't aimed at making Norwich the number 1 Premier League brand in Brazil down the line when we get back there.

Edited February 26 by littleyellowbirdie

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

The article is not specifically aimed at bigging up ITFC. It is more about the influence of big money in the game. He could have been using any number of lesser monied Chumps clubs as a basis for his views. The Binners just happen to be that club at this moment in time. He didn't even mention their glorious "history" after all.

He did actually manage to overlook the fact that it has been the influence of American investment that has resurrected their fortunes.

His view of the parachutes is valid. Supporters tend to support the system when their club gets them, then oppose this when they are without. The parachutes are needed to some extent, but more monitoring of their use needs to be had.

It was a badly written article, nb. his spelling of "installments" and other minor faux pas. 

Never heard of him, though, so I make it an irrelevant and unoriginal contribution.

Edited February 26 by BroadstairsR

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I sometimes wonder, given the resemblance between Norwich shirts and Brazil shirts, whether part of our tilt to Brazilian players isn't aimed at making Norwich the number 1 Premier League brand in Brazil down the line when we get back there.

Also, the Aussie ODI team. Perhaps they should think about an NCFC 20/20 team entering the league and playing at Carrow Road and get the support of Australians as well as extra revenue.

Norfolk deserves a bit of top-tier cricket as well.

[A K Narey 236]

Or possibly Barnes and Duffy could lead a Norwich XV in a challenge match against The Wallabies? 😜

[Rupethebear 29]

The article is bang on the money, proves football is all about money.

[cambridgeshire canary 7,798]

8 hours ago, Commonsense said:

They haven’t done much flipping in the last 20 years!

Wednesday are also only a prem team in the minds of a few of their most deluded fans.

Well, the binners may not have been in the top flight for 20 years and spent the last five in league 1 but if you ask them you would think they are winning trophies every other year and battling it out in Europe the way they go on about how "huge" they are..

 

Honestly never seen a more deluded fanbase. Hell, Look at Leicester and their fans. In the last decade they've won the prem, the FA cup, played in Europe..

 

Yet you never hear any of them talk about it. Wonder why?

Edited February 26 by cambridgeshire canary

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

Also, the Aussie ODI team.

"That's not canary yellow my friend, that's Australian gold and don't you f***ing forget it"

[Badger 2,745]

9 hours ago, Commonsense said:

They haven’t done much flipping in the last 20 years!

 

That's because they had very "ambitious" owners who plunged them into huge debt chasing the dream quick success. 

[yellowrider120 917]

3 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

The article is not specifically aimed at bigging up ITFC. It is more about the influence of big money in the game. He could have been using any number of lesser monied Chumps clubs as a basis for his views. The Binners just happen to be that club at this moment in time. He didn't even mention their glorious "history" after all.

He did actually manage to overlook the fact that it has been the influence of American investment that has resurrected their fortunes.

His view of the parachutes is valid. Supporters tend to support the system when their club gets them, then oppose this when they are without. The parachutes are needed to some extent, but more monitoring of their use needs to be had.

It was a badly written article, nb. his spelling of "installments" and other minor faux pas. 

Never heard of him, though, so I make it an irrelevant and unoriginal contribution.

Quite how the article can be described as 'disgusting' is anyone's guess!  You and I both read the article and (as you say) the extent of focus on ITFC is minimal. The reaction of some on here is disappointing. A bit like some on TWTD going into fury over Look East, About Anglia or Norwich having the audacity of having a Cathedral! 

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

51 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

"That's not canary yellow my friend, that's Australian gold and don't you f***ing forget it"

Do we actually play in "canary yellow" though?

Pedantic really as the bird comes in a variety of yellows.

Gold is gold, though, or is it? 😄😄

 

 

Aussies looking more like canaries.

What colour is the "Amber nectar?" then. I should know.

(Great way to waste 5 minutes of the life though.)

Edited February 26 by BroadstairsR

[BigFish 2,282]

9 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Quite how the article can be described as 'disgusting' is anyone's guess!  You and I both read the article and (as you say) the extent of focus on ITFC is minimal. The reaction of some on here is disappointing. A bit like some on TWTD going into fury over Look East, About Anglia or Norwich having the audacity of having a Cathedral! 

True, the similarity between the posts of some on here and some on TWTD is remarkable. As is their ability not to see it.

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

Aussies looking more like canaries.

Oh, those Aussies definitely play in canary yellow. They just don't like it when you point it out. Think it insults their masculinity, or something. Strewth.

[shefcanary 2,955]

58 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Oh, those Aussies definitely play in canary yellow. They just don't like it when you point it out. Think it insults their masculinity, or something. Strewth.

Them Oz lads prefer the canaries in their speedo's after all! 😉 

[Nuff Said 5,963]

The article is just column filling. You could have pretty much written the same article 12 months ago using Luton instead of Ipswich.

Looking at the actual arguments in the article:

 

1. It references a Sheffield Hallam university report that stated “clubs with parachute payments were three times more likely to be promoted than their rivals”. Out of context, this means nothing. It’s a weak correlation and without a lot more evidence it’s valueless. Bigger clubs are more likely to challenge for promotion so are more likely to get parachute payments if they do go up. What is cause and what is effect? (The report may make this clear, but I don’t have time to find or read it and the article conveniently ignores this if it does).
2. The article actually states “Unlike previous Championship campaigns the illusion of jeopardy for the ex-Premier League sides has been more absent than before”. So only one season has all three relegated clubs vying for promotion. All the others don’t show that relegated clubs necessarily go straight back up because they have parachute payments. We can all list the many ex-Prem clubs in the Championship - or below - that have failed to bounce back despite parachute payments. Fortunately none of them have gone out of business because of the financial burden of competing in the PL - because they had parachute payments to soften the blow.
3. “Back-to-back promotions these days are incredibly rare which has made the Suffolk side’s rise the more compelling. As has the organic feel to the growth.” I think we can name a club who actually achieved back-to-back promotion not so long ago, which the binners have still to do. And this “organic growth” was achieved by significant financial investment from their new owners in League 1, conveniently ignored. How much extra was pumped into NCFC when we were in a league 1 (for one season)? Maybe clubs who subvert FFP is where the author ought to be looking.

4. Most importantly, the author accidentally explains why their own argument is nonsense: “no Premier League debutant from the past decade, who must have felt the gap unbridgeable, has called for the parachute payments to be axed”. Any team that gets to the PL has to spend a huge amount compared to their previous seasons. When they get promoted, the reality of this “unbridgeable gap” sets in and parachute payments are a necessity if the club isn’t to gamble massively financially. Parachute payments enable this to happen, otherwise they would be uncompetitive. Dispensing with the payments, as the article quotes Richard Masters saying, “would create significant difficulties for promoted clubs. It would affect the competitive balance of the Premier League.” QED.

 

Edit: 

And 5: Now Everton have had their points deduction reduced, who are the three teams at the bottom of the PL table? The three teams promoted last season, despite knowing they will have parachute payments. Maybe that’s where the focus ought to be.

Edited February 26 by Nuff Said

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

7 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The article is just column filling. You could have pretty much written the same article 12 months ago using Luton instead of Ipswich.

Looking at the actual arguments in the article:

 

1. It references a Sheffield Hallam university report that stated “clubs with parachute payments were three times more likely to be promoted than their rivals”. Out of context, this means nothing. It’s a weak correlation and without a lot more evidence it’s valueless. Bigger clubs are more likely to challenge for promotion so are more likely to get parachute payments if they do go up. What is cause and what is effect? (The report may make this clear, but I don’t have time to find or read it and the article conveniently ignores this if it does).
2. The article actually states “Unlike previous Championship campaigns the illusion of jeopardy for the ex-Premier League sides has been more absent than before”. So only one season has all three relegated clubs vying for promotion. All the others don’t show that relegated clubs necessarily go straight back up because they have parachute payments. We can all list the many ex-Prem clubs in the Championship - or below - that have failed to bounce back despite parachute payments. Fortunately none of them have gone out of business because of the financial burden of competing in the PL - because they had parachute payments to soften the blow.
3. “Back-to-back promotions these days are incredibly rare which has made the Suffolk side’s rise the more compelling. As has the organic feel to the growth.” I think we can name a club who actually achieved back-to-back promotion not so long ago, which the binners have still to do. And this “organic growth” was achieved by significant financial investment from their new owners in League 1, conveniently ignored. How much extra was pumped into NCFC when we were in a league 1 (for one season)? Maybe clubs who subvert FFP is where the author ought to be looking.

4. Most importantly, the author accidentally explains why their own argument is nonsense: “no Premier League debutant from the past decade, who must have felt the gap unbridgeable, has called for the parachute payments to be axed”. Any team that gets to the PL has to spend a huge amount compared to their previous seasons. When they get promoted, the reality of this “unbridgeable gap” sets in and parachute payments are a necessity if the club isn’t to gamble massively financially. Parachute payments enable this to happen, otherwise they would be uncompetitive. Dispensing with the payments, as the article quotes Richard Masters saying, “would create significant difficulties for promoted clubs. It would affect the competitive balance of the Premier League.” QED.

The mistake you've made here is to actually read the piece 😉

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

46 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Them Oz lads prefer the canaries in their speedo's after all! 😉 

tee hee. Very good.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Oh, those Aussies definitely play in canary yellow. They just don't like it when you point it out. Think it insults their masculinity, or something. Strewth.

It's only the Aussie cricketers who are the obnoxious ones. The latest being Warner, of course, but Steve Smith cheated in order to win and as for the Lords incident last series ... enough said.

The Aussie fans themselves are more equitable and very good company. I've spent some time in various sports bars in Asia watching Ashes series with them.

They had a deep dislike of Steve Waugh, for example, despite his achievements, and thought Freddie Flintoff a demi-god. Just their type. 

Edited February 26 by BroadstairsR

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

4 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

It's only the Aussie cricketers who are the obnoxious ones. The latest being Warner, of course, but Steve Smith cheated in order to win and as for the Lords incident last series ... enough said.

The Aussie fans themselves are more equitable and very good company. I've spent some time in various sports bars in Asia watching Ashes series with them.

They had a deep dislike of Steve Waugh, for example, despite his achievements, and thought Freddie Flintoff a demi-god. Just their type. 

Yeah, I was only messing around, really. I love Aussies generally, and, like you, have watched a lot of sport with them in Asian sports bars. On top of that, I'd actually say that the current Australian cricket team is the least dislikeable I can remember. Pat Cummins is an excellent bloke, Usman Khawaja, Mitch Marsh, Travis Head, Mitchell Starc all seem much the same and I was very disappointed to discover in an interview that Marnus is actually quite nice. Even Warner has mellowed.

I'd say that with regard to the the Lord's incident, the worst behaviour was actually from the English, specifically the red-trousered hooligans in the Long Room.

Edited February 26 by Robert N. LiM

[C.I.D 358]

7 hours ago, Badger said:

That's because they had very "ambitious" owners who plunged them into huge debt chasing the dream quick success. 

For which they ultimately escaped virtually scot-free thanks to the incompetence and mismanagement by their erstwhile owner 😠