norwich in the clear..

[singing canary 0]

news now... some good news at last.

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="singing canary"]news now... some good news at last.[/quote]

 

Ha ha, its almost like this is bad news!! I think people were genuinly hoping we had a traitor in team so we could blame our underpermances on him. What a pathetic situation we are in. [:|]

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="thecanaryfan wants the board out"]

[quote user="singing canary"]news now... some good news at last.[/quote]

 

Ha ha, its almost like this is bad news!! I think people were genuinly hoping we had a traitor in team so we could blame our underpermances on him. What a pathetic situation we are in. [:|]

[/quote]

I havent seen any official release to this effect, would love the link if there has been one.  Probably the reason why there has been so little response to this thread, rather than anything else canaryfan

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="SWP Poor Mans Ruel Fox"][quote user="thecanaryfan wants the board out"]

[quote user="singing canary"]news now some good news at last.[/quote]

 

Ha ha, its almost like this is bad news!! I think people were genuinly hoping we had a traitor in team so we could blame our underpermances on him. What a pathetic situation we are in. [:|]

[/quote]

I havent seen any official release to this effect, would love the link if there has been one.  Probably the reason why there has been so little response to this thread, rather than anything else canaryfan

[/quote]

Surely the fact we have been cleared would suggest good news? Lets face it, a statement from the officail betting ring would suggest theres is no misnomenour?

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="thecanaryfan wants the board out"][quote user="SWP Poor Mans Ruel Fox"][quote user="thecanaryfan wants the board out"]

[quote user="singing canary"]news now some good news at last.[/quote]

 

Ha ha, its almost like this is bad news!! I think people were genuinly hoping we had a traitor in team so we could blame our underpermances on him. What a pathetic situation we are in. [:|]

[/quote]

I havent seen any official release to this effect, would love the link if there has been one.  Probably the reason why there has been so little response to this thread, rather than anything else canaryfan

[/quote]

Surely the fact we have been cleared would suggest good news? Lets face it, a statement from the officail betting ring would suggest theres is no misnomenour?

[/quote]

My point was where is this ''official statement''?  I havent seen it and no one has posted a link to it.  Makes me wonder if it actually exists, so there is no concrete good news in that regard really is there.

[scrimmage 0]

this what you''re after?....http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1423996,00.html

[canary cherub 1]

SWP = Poor Man''s Ruel Fox!! wrote:

My point was where is this ''official statement''?  I havent seen it and no one has posted a link to it.  Makes me wonder if it actually exists, so there is no concrete good news in that regard really is there.

 

Are people getting carried away by the European bookmakers statement on the official site?

Folks, this statement has nothing whatever to do with the investigation.  It states that European bookmakers were not involved, which only confirms what we already knew.  It was bookmakers in the Far East. 

Why the club should post something so irrelevant and misleading is anyone''s guess.

 

[scrimmage 0]

oh, my bad.

[T 191]

Derby have done the same but I agree PP. The article was not clear but I also read it as being no irregularities in Europe rather than Asia and therefore irrelevant.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="T"]Derby have done the same but I agree PP. The article was not clear but I also read it as being no irregularities in Europe rather than Asia and therefore irrelevant.[/quote]

That is how I read it as well, didnt realise the OP was talking about that statement, which has already been discussed on other threads.  So no good news, but knowing how long the FA take to deal with things, and now UEFA have stuck their oar in a little who are even slower, I wouldnt expect any official news for a long long time.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="T"]Derby have done the same but I agree PP. The article was not clear but I also read it as being no irregularities in Europe rather than Asia and therefore irrelevant.[/quote]

I find that faintly disturbing.  Both clubs must be well aware that it''s irrelevant and liable to mislead, and it makes it look as though they''ve acted together.  Not good.

 

[canary cherub 1]

I don''t care how long it takes as long as the investigation is as rigorous as it possibly can be.  This isn''t just about us, it''s about English football and indeed football worldwide.  We''ve become a tiny part of something absolutely huge. 

If UEFA think they are dealing with organised crime as Platini suggests, it may take a very long time indeed.  Apparently UEFA are investigating 15 similar cases in Europe involving obscure clubs and/or games, and it would make sense to include ours if they are looking for common threads.  If the FA reject UEFA involvement it would open them to accusations of a cover up so I don''t think they''ve got any choice.

 

 

[T 191]

As it is a problem for both clubs it seems just plain commensense rather than disturbing that the Board consults with Derby - it would be silly if they came up with conflicting stories because they did not consult each other. Furthermore based on the reported betting patterns and what happened it seems unlikely that the club is too blame. Even if it involved wither of the clubs most of these incidents have involved one individual acting in isolation as it would be extremely difficult to coordinate and get away with it.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="T"]As it is a problem for both clubs it seems just plain commensense rather than disturbing that the Board consults with Derby - it would be silly if they came up with conflicting stories because they did not consult each other. [/quote]

In general I agree, not a problem.  But in this particular instance they have both posted something that is not only irrelevant but misleading.  You''d think one or the other would have pointed that out.

 

[T 191]

Not entirely irrelevant as it is related but I agree it could be misleading unless you read it properly. Although as we both understood it straight away you could also say it was just a statement of fact and not misleading at all unless you are not very good good at reading. The pink''un article though is clearer as it avoids any doubt and I prefer clarity.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="T"]Not entirely irrelevant as it is related but I agree it could be misleading unless you read it properly. Although as we both understood it straight away you could also say it was just a statement of fact and not misleading at all unless you are not very good good at reading. The pink''un article though is clearer as it avoids any doubt and I prefer clarity.[/quote]

It isn''t simply a case of reading it properly.  The headline "No irregular betting" is undeniably misleading.  People read the headline first and then read the text (if they read it at all) in the context of the headline.  The average reader has a short attention span and if they find technical stuff about European betting organisations too boring or too difficult to understand, they will revert to the headline. 

 

[T 191]

I agree it could be more explicit but you and I were not mislead and I read it very quickly. So it factually correct and not misleading but I agree adding the reference to the asian mkt in the pinkun  adds clarity. Personally I have arguments like this with clients all the time and they get upset about adding explicit clarity. I think it is better to be clear but I''m afraid it is the world we live in.

[Mello Yello 2,572]

...and we''re actually, still not yet ''in the clear''.... But personally, (and not wishing to mislead with any ''riddly diddly dee'' comments). I''ll be very surprised if we''re found guilty of anything - other than the fact our performances are quite $h*t and we haven''t got 2 halfpennies to rub together - to rectify it.....