The Most Unpopular Post of the Year - My View

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Badger"]Don''t worry Tom. Most of them don''t know that other cities have suburbs and outlying towns too. The irony is that they think everybody else is stupid![/quote]Asinine even by your standards Neil.[/quote]Care to elucidate or would you like to keep it at nice simple abuse - I wouldn''t want to tax you with requiring reason![/quote]Don''t worry Badger it''s not taxing when you''re used to using it. ''Asinine'' is an adjective derived from the latin ''asininus'' which means of or relating to an ass or in more modern usage ''extremely or utterly foolish''.As in:  ''It is asinine to imply that all the posters on this thread who do not agree with the points raised by one particular poster are ignorant to the point that they do not know other cities have suburbs or outlying towns too''.''It is also asinine to imply that all other posters on the message board are stupid''.In using the phrase ''even by your standards'' I draw attention to the fact that this is not the first time you have made derogatory comments on such a sweeping basis as this latest snipe and further highlight that a one liner in which you in two separate sentences call us thick is a more concentrated attempt at abuse than you normally make.The ''Neil'' is to do with the name Badger. I know of a ''Neil'' who reminds me of a Badger, let''s call it a nickname shall we.So in summary ''Asinine even by your standards Neil''.Means your post is extraordinarily stupid and insulting even from one who isn''t averse to popping in the odd insult on here when they have nothing more intelligent or constructive to say on the topic.Next lesson is ''Agent Provocateur'' don''t forget to do your research.

(Neil).[/quote]Rather surprisingly you completely miss the point, but reinforce mine. No attempt to deal with the point about outlying towns, suburbs etc just further abuse.I am perfectly aware of what asinine means, and if I were as cheap as some, I might be tempted to apply it to some of the arguments here.Where I remain confused by is how you try to explain that Bristol and catchment is the same size as Norwich and catchment. Ducked the real point to look things up in your dictionary is my guess.Equally, re stupidity, it is you and your unrepresentative ilk that have been calling City fans stupid/ backward/ sheep for some time now. If only we have been as brave as you and made a stand like you have everything would have been perfect. As a recent thread stated us fans get what we deserve and it is because we have been so stupid so as not to follow the lead of Smudger/ Wizard et al.

I ask again - but more in hope than expectation - "Care to elucidate or would you like to keep it at nice simple abuse - I wouldn''t want to tax you with requiring reason!"

[BlueJam 0]

Population of Norwich :"The population of the Norwich Travel to Work Area i.e. the area of Norwich in which most people both live and work, is 367,035"Population of Luton : "Luton is home to 184,000 people, speaking over 100 languages. These pages offer census information and statistics"Population of Oxford :"Since then (2001) it is estimated to have increased to 151,000 by 2007."So without delving deeper, your facts are wrong already

[Badger 0]

[quote user="BlueJam"]Population of Norwich :"The population of the Norwich Travel to Work Area i.e. the area of Norwich in which most people both live and work, is 367,035"Population of Luton : "Luton is home to 184,000 people, speaking over 100 languages. These pages offer census information and statistics"Population of Oxford :"Since then (2001) it is estimated to have increased to 151,000 by 2007."So without delving deeper, your facts are wrong already[/quote]Assuming this is a genuine misunderstanding, you have not compared like to like, so the comparison is meaningless.e.g. the Norwich population is defined as "travel to work area" but Luton is "home to." The former ("travel to work area") is how many drive to Norwich to work - this might include, for exampl,e people from Gt Yarmouth. The latter "home to" refers to how many people live within its boundaries. A lot of the criticism of Tom is founded upon similar misunderstandings at best, or deliberate attempts to mislead by others. As you have seen above, when challenged they simply resort to abuse as reason would expose the flaws in their argument.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

You are not comparing like for like. If you want to include places such as Kings Lynn in the Norwich catchment area, then you should add an Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Bath etc. in the Bristol catchement area which still makes the population of the Bristol catchment area many, many times that of Norfolk - which ever way you want to look at it.

And I repeate, Bristol Rugby club only get an average of 5,005 - and many of those also go to football games - so Norwich get more fans than the Bristol Rugby club, Bristol City, and Bristol Rovers added together- and Norwich has a much lower number of people within its catchment area than Bristol. Bristol is the 6th biggest city in England.

[/quote]

Tom, most of the places you mention there have their own club or rugby team.  Rugby has a huge influence in the West of the country and the two sports do not generally mix well.  Anecdotally, plenty of people i`ve met from the West say that "people prefer rugby to football".  Swindon isn`t too far up the road.

My point is that every area with a larger population has a corresponding larger number of football clubs and major sports.  Another example:  South Yorkshire has a population of 1.26m people.  It has FIVE professional football clubs and big rugby clubs plus ice hockey/speedway etc.  Makes our catchment area of 1 million in Norfolk and N.Suffolk for one team with no other major sports not half bad doesn`t it?

[/quote]Firstly can I point out that Worcester is just a short hop down the A449 from Wolverhampton or 20 mins on the M5 from Birmingham yet half as far again from Bristol as Ipswich is from Norwich. Hereford is stretching the point somewhat too. Sportwise what is missing from the argument is the game of cricket, Somerset, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire and Hampshire are four of the most established County Cricket sides in the Country and all these clubs grounds are within a 1 hour car journey of Bristol. The football/cricket crossover is not particularly strong I''d guess it''s because of where the emphasis lies when you are young so although cricket is primarily a summer game there does appear to be a tendency towards a rugby/cricket crossover as the seasons change.The big point is that paying customers at ''professional level'' large sporting events in Norfolk (No offence minor sports fans) have approximately 25 football matches per annum to attend in the County/one  hour travel radius.Bristolians can choose from approx 50 football matches, (City and Rovers), 600 days and or nights of professional cricket (between the four teams), and with the Bath, Bristol and Gloucester Rugby Union triumverate another 200 professional Rugby matches and all within a 60 minute car journey of home. True rugby fans can be in the Welsh valleys watching Cardiff play Pontypridd within that hour too but that''s stretching the point.It''s little wonder to me that football attendances aren''t as high in the South West when there are tickets to that many events available in the course of a year.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Badger"]Rather surprisingly you completely miss the point, but reinforce mine. No attempt to deal with the point about outlying towns, suburbs etc just further abuse.I am perfectly aware of what asinine means, and if I were as cheap as some, I might be tempted to apply it to some of the arguments here.Where I remain confused by is how you try to explain that Bristol and catchment is the same size as Norwich and catchment. Ducked the real point to look things up in your dictionary is my guess.Equally, re stupidity, it is you and your unrepresentative ilk that have been calling City fans stupid/ backward/ sheep for some time now. If only we have been as brave as you and made a stand like you have everything would have been perfect. As a recent thread stated us fans get what we deserve and it is because we have been so stupid so as not to follow the lead of Smudger/ Wizard et al.

I ask again - but more in hope than expectation - "Care to elucidate or would you like to keep it at nice simple abuse - I wouldn''t want to tax you with requiring reason!"[/quote]Badger please substantiate your insults by showing me where I claim Bristol to be smaller than Norwich. Having lived in both Cities I find it hard to believe I would ever make such a claim.Please also substantiate your other insulting allegation that I: ''have been calling City fans stupid/ backward/ sheep for some time now''.I will accept a quote or a link to a quote made by myself as such substantiation, this should be easy if I''m as culpable as you state I expect instead for you to huff and puff and say you can''t be bothered to waste your time. Badger: Well informed and intelligent poster or Board Troll? Prove which one you really are.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]

The big point is that paying customers at ''professional level'' large sporting events in Norfolk (No offence minor sports fans) have approximately 25 football matches per annum to attend in the County/one  hour travel radius.Bristolians can choose from approx 50 football matches, (City and Rovers), 600 days and or nights of professional cricket (between the four teams), and with the Bath, Bristol and Gloucester Rugby Union triumverate another 200 professional Rugby matches and all within a 60 minute car journey of home. True rugby fans can be in the Welsh valleys watching Cardiff play Pontypridd within that hour too but that''s stretching the point.It''s little wonder to me that football attendances aren''t as high in the South West when there are tickets to that many events available in the course of a year.[/quote]Two points:1. You make no attempt to define the population of the "60 minute car journey" which you cite in your argument. As you yourself state this brings in a number of large population centres, including Cardiff. You can''t identify the number of alternative attractions within 60 minutes without including the population within this.2. My main point however, this is a thinly veiled attack on City fans once again and one I have seen on the boards of other clubs. The point that you are trying to make is that Norwich do not get high attendance because we are loyal and supportive and strongly attached to our club /area but because we have nothing better to do. As one of your ilk put it on another thread, we are just part of a happy-clappy brigade who don''t care as long as we have a nice day out.Well sorry I don''t buy this. Norwich fans care intensely about their club and are fiercely loyal to Norwich and Norfolk as an area. Just because we don''t have "the balls" (a word your ilk likes) to join your protests does not make us any less loyal than you and I for one wish you lot would stop pretending otherwise.In the weird world of your minority clique, the loyal fans don''t go to matches because you care too much, whilst the ones that do go are sheep who have nothing better to do.

ps - for future reference, please note that it is possible to make an argument without resorting to abusive terms.

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Buckethead"]

The big point is that paying customers at ''professional level'' large sporting events in Norfolk (No offence minor sports fans) have approximately 25 football matches per annum to attend in the County/one  hour travel radius.Bristolians can choose from approx 50 football matches, (City and Rovers), 600 days and or nights of professional cricket (between the four teams), and with the Bath, Bristol and Gloucester Rugby Union triumverate another 200 professional Rugby matches and all within a 60 minute car journey of home. True rugby fans can be in the Welsh valleys watching Cardiff play Pontypridd within that hour too but that''s stretching the point.It''s little wonder to me that football attendances aren''t as high in the South West when there are tickets to that many events available in the course of a year.[/quote]Two points:1. You make no attempt to define the population of the "60 minute car journey" which you cite in your argument. As you yourself state this brings in a number of large population centres, including Cardiff. You can''t identify the number of alternative attractions within 60 minutes without including the population within this.2. My main point however, this is a thinly veiled attack on City fans once again and one I have seen on the boards of other clubs. The point that you are trying to make is that Norwich do not get high attendance because we are loyal and supportive and strongly attached to our club /area but because we have nothing better to do. As one of your ilk put it on another thread, we are just part of a happy-clappy brigade who don''t care as long as we have a nice day out.Well sorry I don''t buy this. Norwich fans care intensely about their club and are fiercely loyal to Norwich and Norfolk as an area. Just because we don''t have "the balls" (a word your ilk likes) to join your protests does not make us any less loyal than you and I for one wish you lot would stop pretending otherwise.In the weird world of your minority clique, the loyal fans don''t go to matches because you care too much, whilst the ones that do go are sheep who have nothing better to do.

ps - for future reference, please note that it is possible to make an argument without resorting to abusive terms.[/quote]Buckethead - sorry, but I really don''t see the point in trying to argue your viewpoint with trolls like these. Badgers sole purpose on these boards has always been one of diluting and diffracting any constructive argument against the board. Indeed, one could almost wonder as to their employer or club allegiance.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]Badger please substantiate your insults by showing me where I claim Bristol to be smaller than Norwich. Having lived in both Cities I find it hard to believe I would ever make such a claim.Please also substantiate your other insulting allegation that I: ''have been calling City fans stupid/ backward/ sheep for some time now''.I will accept a quote or a link to a quote made by myself as such substantiation, this should be easy if I''m as culpable as you state I expect instead for you to huff and puff and say you can''t be bothered to waste your time. Badger: Well informed and intelligent poster or Board Troll? Prove which one you really are.

[/quote]1. Good, we are making progress - so you acknowledge that Bristol is far bigger than Norwich and as someone who has lived there would happily say so to anyone that tries to contradict Tom on this. Please make this plain in any subsequent posts.2. If you haven''t noticed that there have been lots of posts from your ilk that have been abusive of City fans of late, you can''t have been reading very carefully. If you want to disassociate yourself from these and feel that Norwich fans that don''t join protests care just as (possibly more) passionately as those that do, I would accept this as progress too.3. It does remain disappointing that you have to revert to terms of abuse however, and could cause some to doubt your conversion and feel that you have only shifted ground when cornered. I will give you the benefit of the doubt however, and welcome you to the cause of the sensible majority!"There is more joy..."

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Buckethead"]Badger please substantiate your insults by showing me where I claim Bristol to be smaller than Norwich. Having lived in both Cities I find it hard to believe I would ever make such a claim.Please also substantiate your other insulting allegation that I: ''have been calling City fans stupid/ backward/ sheep for some time now''.I will accept a quote or a link to a quote made by myself as such substantiation, this should be easy if I''m as culpable as you state I expect instead for you to huff and puff and say you can''t be bothered to waste your time. Badger: Well informed and intelligent poster or Board Troll? Prove which one you really are.

[/quote]1. Good, we are making progress - so you acknowledge that Bristol is far bigger than Norwich and as someone who has lived there would happily say so to anyone that tries to contradict Tom on this. Please make this plain in any subsequent posts.2. If you haven''t noticed that there have been lots of posts from your ilk that have been abusive of City fans of late, you can''t have been reading very carefully. If you want to disassociate yourself from these and feel that Norwich fans that don''t join protests care just as (possibly more) passionately as those that do, I would accept this as progress too.3. It does remain disappointing that you have to revert to terms of abuse however, and could cause some to doubt your conversion and feel that you have only shifted ground when cornered. I will give you the benefit of the doubt however, and welcome you to the cause of the sensible majority!"There is more joy..."[/quote]So Badger fails to find a single quote then turns specifics to generalisations more weasel words than those of a badger, we''re only a toad and a mole short of The wind in the willows but hold fire there might be a mole after all yet its coming across more ''Wind as he Wallows'' than Toad of Toad Hall.Complaining about abuse is particularly hypocritical coming from one whos first entry to this thread reads ''Most of them don''t know that other cities have

suburbs and outlying towns too. The irony is that they think everybody

else is stupid!'' and Astrodyne point well made and taken.

[. 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Badger"]
Don''t worry Tom.

Most of them don''t know that other cities have suburbs and outlying towns too. The irony is that they think everybody else is stupid!
[/quote]

Asinine even by your standards Neil.
[/quote]

Care to elucidate or would you like to keep it at nice simple abuse - I wouldn''t want to tax you with requiring reason!
[/quote]

Don''t worry Badger it''s not taxing when you''re used to using it.

''Asinine'' is an adjective derived from the latin ''asininus'' which means of or relating to an ass or in more modern usage ''extremely or utterly foolish''.

As in:  ''It is asinine to imply that all the posters on this thread who do not agree with the points raised by one particular poster are ignorant to the point that they do not know other cities have suburbs or outlying towns too''.

''It is also asinine to imply that all other posters on the message board are stupid''.

In using the phrase ''even by your standards'' I draw attention to the fact that this is not the first time you have made derogatory comments on such a sweeping basis as this latest snipe and further highlight that a one liner in which you in two separate sentences call us thick is a more concentrated attempt at abuse than you normally make.

The ''Neil'' is to do with the name Badger. I know of a ''Neil'' who reminds me of a Badger, let''s call it a nickname shall we.

So in summary

''Asinine even by your standards Neil''.

Means your post is extraordinarily stupid and insulting even from one who isn''t averse to popping in the odd insult on here when they have nothing more intelligent or constructive to say on the topic.

Next lesson is ''Agent Provocateur'' don''t forget to do your research.


(Neil).
[/quote]

Rather surprisingly you completely miss the point, but reinforce mine. No attempt to deal with the point about outlying towns, suburbs etc just further abuse.

I am perfectly aware of what asinine means, and if I were as cheap as some, I might be tempted to apply it to some of the arguments here.

Where I remain confused by is how you try to explain that Bristol and catchment is the same size as Norwich and catchment. Ducked the real point to look things up in your dictionary is my guess.

Equally, re stupidity, it is you and your unrepresentative ilk that have been calling City fans stupid/ backward/ sheep for some time now. If only we have been as brave as you and made a stand like you have everything would have been perfect. As a recent thread stated us fans get what we deserve and it is because we have been so stupid so as not to follow the lead of Smudger/ Wizard et al.


I ask again - but more in hope than expectation - "Care to elucidate or would you like to keep it at nice simple abuse - I wouldn''t want to tax you with requiring reason!"

[/quote]

Pompous prick....

Wear your wool with pride.....

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Badger"]1. Good, we are making progress - so you acknowledge that Bristol is far bigger than Norwich and as someone who has lived there would happily say so to anyone that tries to contradict Tom on this. Please make this plain in any subsequent posts.2. If you haven''t noticed that there have been lots of posts from your ilk that have been abusive of City fans of late, you can''t have been reading very carefully. If you want to disassociate yourself from these and feel that Norwich fans that don''t join protests care just as (possibly more) passionately as those that do, I would accept this as progress too.3. It does remain disappointing that you have to revert to terms of abuse however, and could cause some to doubt your conversion and feel that you have only shifted ground when cornered. I will give you the benefit of the doubt however, and welcome you to the cause of the sensible majority!"There is more joy..."[/quote]So Badger fails to find a single quote then turns specifics to generalisations more weasel words than those of a badger, we''re only a toad and a mole short of The wind in the willows but hold fire there might be a mole after all yet its coming across more ''Wind as he Wallows'' than Toad of Toad Hall.Complaining about abuse is particularly hypocritical coming from one whos first entry to this thread reads ''Most of them don''t know that other cities have

suburbs and outlying towns too. The irony is that they think everybody

else is stupid!'' and Astrodyne point well made and taken.[/quote]Rather ungracious but no attempt to deny the top two points, so I think we can take it that as recognition that you have surrendered the points. Certainly, acknowledging Astrodyne, seems to give you a pretext for withdrawal with as much face saved as possible.In his original post Tom made some good points recognising that some of his views would be unpopular with some of the unrepresentative clique that post on here. There were some quite ridiculous arguments made against Tom''s views, which when pressed nobody has been able to defend.Good post Tom - some independent thinking rather than "Norwich City a club run by idiots for idiots" which interestingly neither Buckethead nor Astrodyne felt the need to contradict!

[Syteanric 1]

The Board have backed managers with as much money as possible and then some.no they haven''t. Walker, Rioch, Hamitlon, Grant and Roeder were not given the time or the funds that Nigel Worthington was.

 

 It is just a shame for everyone that the managers were not very good. The Board even got Dave Stringer to help them make a choice. Even so, Roeder did save the club from relegation when it looked like relegation certs, so even he was a very good choice at the time. David Stringer has been out of football since 1992, thats over 17 years, he probably wonders why robert Ullathorne doesn''t turn up for training every day! the game has passed him by and he is so out of touch its untrue, he helped with the selection of Grant too. that was a disaster so why the hell board used him again i dont know.

Regardless, many clubs make the same managerial mistakes as the average job time for a football manager is about 18 months. It is obviously very hard to get a good manager - which is why Worthy was given as long as possible before he was driven out by fans. Is it? we had a good manager in Martin O''Neil, we had a good manager in Mike Walker, the Scum had a good manager in Burley, MK dons have got Roberto di Matteo... is it really that hard or do the board only look for yes men?

I find it laughable that fans accuse the Board of spending too much money on players wages whilst others say the club lacks ambition. Which is it to be? We are spending too much money on other clubs players wages, Gow, Bertrand, Mooney, Lee, Lita, Carney, Omozusi, Koroma, Sibierski, just a few of the ones we have got through this season. tey are on loan, they dont give a toss, if we go down thy return to their club and laugh and joke and have fun... if it was our players they might just play well to earn that wage and care a little bit more.

 It is up to a manager to spend his budget wisely - and that obviously hasn''t happened. if the board arent making the necessary funds available to BUY players then all he ca do is rely on loans.

Some fans talk of the potential of Norwich City, but Norwich can only support a medium sized club as Norwich does not have a huge local population. The stadium is nearly full for most games so Norwich City is not far from its potential off the pitch. Therefore, off the pitch the Board have done a good job to help reach the potential. Portsmouth... that disproves the point, Premiership football an FA cup and Europe.

Take Bristol for example, Norwich City get higher crowds than Bristol City & Bristol Rovers added together, and Bristol has a massive local population many, many times bigger than Norwich. Go talk to those clubs about the meaning of potential. The Same Bristol City who have finished above us for the past 2 seasons and are owned by one of the richest men in Britain? ok.. should be a good discussion for a club who will be premiership in a few years. we wont.

What''s next? drive out Delia and Co without a wealthy replacement and then see the club become the next Luton, Notts County, or Oxford Utd? Is that what you guys want? Luton are now doing ok under new ownership, as are torquay, Rotherham, Walsall, Peterborough united, dare i say it Ipswich town.....

time to go back to kissing Delias backside now i think Tom.

jas :)

[Badger 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]....

time to go back to kissing Delias backside now i think Tom.

jas :)

[/quote]QED

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="corbs"]The top Clubs all come from the same 4 Cities, Conurbations, and are going to continue to do so under this system : London, Manchester, Liverpool, and of course Birmingham (the perennial under achievers). That is why Cough was unique, because he won Titles with TWO provincial Clubs, Nottingham F and Derby. Norwich is a medium sized provincial Club, well out of the heartland of football, but able to sustain a solid fan base due to being a family friendly Club, thanks in part to this Board. [/quote]

Corbs, don`t faint but i actually agree with all of that.  The thing is i`ve never read a post on here which suggests we should be a top 4 club.  Or a top 10 club.  Top 30?  Absolutely.

The one outright undeniable success the board has had is in the marketing/ticketing policy, but the point is we had the potential fanbase there to utilise.  Even Doncaster said that demand for tickets far outstripped supply in the promotion/Prem seasons, therefore is it reasonable of me to state that a "medium sized provincial club" who have a catchment area of 1 million with no competition and who can pull in 25,000 at the bottom of the Champs, might be able to add say 10,000 to that figure if established in the Prem, making it one of the best supported clubs in the country?

[/quote]

Now Mr C, I can''t let you get away with that. Not withstanding that the increase that you talk about would require significant additional investment & borrowing that you have consistently railed against (perhaps even a new ground) there is the fact that the support City get from the catchment area you talk about has been traditionally lukewarm.

Looking back at the days before seating constrained the raw numbers that support rarely troubled Carrow Road''s capacity and would give a much lower figure than the 35k average that you suggest is achievable. In the 70s John Bond regularly moaned that though he thought of Norwich as a "football" city the gates never supported that.

Indeed the case may be made that fewer individual people go to matches now the average attendance is c24/25k than when it was lower. Back in the days when you could pay on the gate it was quite common for non regulars to turn for the odd game when they fancied it, particularly those who worked Saturdays. Now is suspect many more go every week while the number attending less than half is negligible.

You admit and I agree that the boards one success has been at marketing the gates up. This has been achieved by giving tickets away free, discounted & comparatively cheap. All very laudable but support that would melt away if charged at full price.
[/quote]

BF, as much as we hate to admit it our club, despite spending most of the post-war years in the top two divisions, does not have a particularly illustrious history.  There frankly has not been an awful lot for the local population to get too excited about.  Our nearest neighbours are the more successful club (yes that is hard to write...) but guess which club has the highest post-war average attendance?  Yep, little old Norwich (18,500).

Doncaster told us there were 75,000 enquiries for tickets when we played Chelsea in the cup 7 years ago and that demand was there for 35,000 per week in the promotion/Prem seasons.  Demand for the play-off final was also huge.  Are these figures indicative of a little club with a small catchment area?  We can argue all we like about why our crowds were not so good in the past (i would say a mix of lower population, poorer transport links, less disposable income and the impact that being able to book tickets online has had) but recent history indicates that the club has potential to grow in spades.

As for your last paragraph, most clubs run ticket offers to fill empty seats and we haven`t had to in recent years because the seats sell anyway.  I believe Reading was £29 per person and we still easily sold all the casual tickets- hardly cheap.

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

Badger if you lack the common decency to answer questions put directly before you why on this earth do you expect people to continue in dialogue with you?I quoted figures taken directly from the Norwich City Council website and was accused of statistical manipulation.You accuse me of being in some sort of virtual gang.You accuse me of calling Norfolk people thick.You accuse me of being geographically ignorantYou cannot substantiate your accusations against me yet blub that I resort to insults all the time overlooking the fact that you personally have insulted most people on this thread.Yet again your contribution to a thread has been wholly disruptive and deliberately tangential to the topic, calculated to cause conflict and detract from the subject in true Agent Provocateur style any rabble rousing here has been instigated by you yet it is you who chooses to point the finger at others.This conversation with you has ended pal, you can claim whatever victory you like but the only person you''re fooling is yourself.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]Badger if you lack the common decency to answer questions put directly before you why on this earth do you expect people to continue in dialogue with you?I quoted figures taken directly from the Norwich City Council website and was accused of statistical manipulation.You accuse me ...You accuse me ...You accuse me ...You cannot substantiate your accusations against me ...[/quote]But it''s not all about you is it Buckethead, much as you would like to think that it is.Tom has made some excellent points which were erroneously challenged. Despite having lived in Bristol you don''t do anything to correct the deliberate misinterpretation instead you try to divert attention into some diversionary tactic about you. Repeatedly you have tried to ignore the points made preferring instead to focus upon yourself and me.Well let''s be clear about this - nobody in here gives a monkey''s about either of us - it isn''t about our egos, it is about the future of the football club. You will quite happily sit back and see the fans of our club slurred (no attempt yet again to refute "the club run by idiots for idiots slur) but will prattle on about you.When challenged on facts you go back, once again, to slur and abuse. Yet again, I ask you to address the issues raised by Tom in a reasoned and accurate way armed with your newfound geographical understanding.If you refuse to do this, I think it is reasonable to assume that you have nothing to say that contradicts what he has said, and therefore that his points carry weight that you are not prepared to acknowledge.

Once again I wait more in hope than expectation...

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Show me Bucketheads "slur and abuse" Badger.  If you can`t, go take a nice lie down and come back when you`ve decided to join an adult debate rather than just make things up to suit you like a ten year-old.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Show me Bucketheads "slur and abuse" Badger.  If you can`t, go take a nice lie down and come back when you`ve decided to join an adult debate rather than just make things up to suit you like a ten year-old.[/quote]OK, against my better judgement, because I would rather stick to the argument: Slur and abuse made by “you and your unrepresentative ilk” (as addressed to Buckethead) – on this thread alone“So people living in parts of Hellesdon or any further out aren''t local to Norwich then, good argument Tom”“I have to say you are the most obvious "plant" I have come across in two years of viewing.”“either you''re a plant or your stupid puerile views make you a vegetable - you choose”“Asinine even by your standards Neil.”“your post is extraordinarily stupid and insulting even from one who isn''t averse to popping in the odd insult on here when they have nothing more intelligent or constructive to say on the topic.”“Indeed, one could almost wonder as to their employer or club allegiance.”“Pompous *....”“time to go back to kissing Delias backside now i think Tom.”What we have not had however, is much serious discussion or attempt to refute the points Tom made. Where we have seen them, they have generally relied on statistical manipulation. In your defence you are not as guilty as some and have made some intelligent points. But the “glorious 30” – as evidenced by Monday – have been generally slurring and abusing the fans for some time now – you can’t have missed it. Buckethead and Astrodyne have contributed to some of these threads and felt no need to contradict such statements. Instead they have focussed their attention on decrying anyone that opposes such views as a board apologist/ employee or fan of another club. This is not an attempt at adult debate is it Mr Carrow?Norwich fans attend carrow Road because they love the club, their town and area - not because we are sheep and there is nothing else to do as they keep on trying to say.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]Badger if you lack the common decency to answer questions put directly before you why on this earth do you expect people to continue in dialogue with you?

I quoted figures taken directly from the Norwich City Council website and was accused of statistical manipulation.

[/quote]

But you were not quoting like for like in comparision to the other places so your figures are hugely distorted.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

You are not comparing like for like. If you want to include places such as Kings Lynn in the Norwich catchment area, then you should add an Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford, Bath etc. in the Bristol catchement area which still makes the population of the Bristol catchment area many, many times that of Norfolk - which ever way you want to look at it.

And I repeate, Bristol Rugby club only get an average of 5,005 - and many of those also go to football games - so Norwich get more fans than the Bristol Rugby club, Bristol City, and Bristol Rovers added together- and Norwich has a much lower number of people within its catchment area than Bristol. Bristol is the 6th biggest city in England.

[/quote]

Tom, most of the places you mention there have their own club or rugby team.  Rugby has a huge influence in the West of the country and the two sports do not generally mix well.  Anecdotally, plenty of people i`ve met from the West say that "people prefer rugby to football".  Swindon isn`t too far up the road.

My point is that every area with a larger population has a corresponding larger number of football clubs and major sports.  Another example:  South Yorkshire has a population of 1.26m people.  It has FIVE professional football clubs and big rugby clubs plus ice hockey/speedway etc.  Makes our catchment area of 1 million in Norfolk and N.Suffolk for one team with no other major sports not half bad doesn`t it?

[/quote]

Firstly can I point out that Worcester is just a short hop down the A449 from Wolverhampton or 20 mins on the M5 from Birmingham yet half as far again from Bristol as Ipswich is from Norwich. Hereford is stretching the point somewhat too. Sportwise what is missing from the argument is the game of cricket, Somerset, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire and Hampshire are four of the most established County Cricket sides in the Country and all these clubs grounds are within a 1 hour car journey of Bristol. The football/cricket crossover is not particularly strong I''d guess it''s because of where the emphasis lies when you are young so although cricket is primarily a summer game there does appear to be a tendency towards a rugby/cricket crossover as the seasons change.

The big point is that paying customers at ''professional level'' large sporting events in Norfolk (No offence minor sports fans) have approximately 25 football matches per annum to attend in the County/one  hour travel radius.
Bristolians can choose from approx 50 football matches, (City and Rovers), 600 days and or nights of professional cricket (between the four teams), and with the Bath, Bristol and Gloucester Rugby Union triumverate another 200 professional Rugby matches and all within a 60 minute car journey of home. True rugby fans can be in the Welsh valleys watching Cardiff play Pontypridd within that hour too but that''s stretching the point.
It''s little wonder to me that football attendances aren''t as high in the South West when there are tickets to that many events available in the course of a year.
[/quote]

You will find that generaly speaking during the summer Bristol City fans follow Somerset CCC and Rovers fans follow Gloucestershire CCC. Fans of both football teams follow the rugby. It is gernally the same people going to more than one sport. If you add them up then Norwich City does far, far better from a much. much lower local population.

And if you want to include other sports Kings Lynn has speedway (none in Bristol) plus there is greyhound racing at Yamouth (none in Bristol) and of course there is horse racing at Yarmouth & Fakenham (none in Bristol). We even have boating (not much in Bristol), a ski slope (none in Bristol) and an olympic sized swimming pool (none in Bristol).

Can everyone not just accept that Norwich City FC is a medium sized club and the Board have done very well to attract so many people to games regardless of results on the pitch?

[Badger 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]Can everyone not just accept that Norwich City FC is a medium sized club and the Board have done very well to attract so many people to games regardless of results on the pitch?[/quote]Unfortunately not Tom.Some on here have a pantomime view of the world whereby the villains are wrong about everything. It all has to be black or white and everything the board has done/ will do has to be wrong. Because you have made a moderately constructive and supportive point you are now cast as either1. A board apologist/2. A relative of the board3. An employee of the boardand possibly all three. As far as they are concerned you do not question the board in anything it has done and are fully supportive of all its actions. You are happy with poor football/ lack ambition/ are naive/ easily duped and aspire to carnal relations with board members (whether or not they are your relatives).

[Wembley_Canary 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]

Some fans talk of the potential of Norwich City, but Norwich can only support a medium sized club as Norwich does not have a huge local population. The stadium is nearly full for most games so Norwich City is not far from its potential off the pitch. Therefore, off the pitch the Board have done a good job to help reach the potential.

Take Bristol for example, Norwich City get higher crowds than Bristol City & Bristol Rovers added together, and Bristol has a massive local population many, many times bigger than Norwich. Go talk to those clubs about the meaning of potential.

[/quote]

Norwich are believed to have the 3rd biggest fan base outside of the Premiership, it''s irrelevent how big the location is of a Town/City, if it doesn''t have the following, Norwich has the following, and therefore has the potential as you can see from link below.

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/490/

 

[Desert Fox 0]

Tom/Neil (or whatever new name you come up with),

Your very unsubtle co-ordinated posting campaign explains why this club is in the mess that it is in. No doubt your later ego "T" will also join the debate shortly. No doubt this has ben concocted to head off the growing disgust exhibited by most posters on here about how our club has been managed.

Why cant you understand that this is not a popularity contest. No mater how much you try to convince people here otherwise, the Board is generally loathed by most fans and we have the right to come on here and let off steam without being castigated or controlled by the Club. Do you really believe that people cant see through you?

As for the popultation of Bristol, what in the hell has this got to do with the mismamagement of our club?

[Badger 0]

[quote user="West_London_Canary"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

Some fans talk of the potential of Norwich City, but Norwich can only support a medium sized club as Norwich does not have a huge local population. The stadium is nearly full for most games so Norwich City is not far from its potential off the pitch. Therefore, off the pitch the Board have done a good job to help reach the potential.

Take Bristol for example, Norwich City get higher crowds than Bristol City & Bristol Rovers added together, and Bristol has a massive local population many, many times bigger than Norwich. Go talk to those clubs about the meaning of potential.

[/quote]

Norwich are believed to have the 3rd biggest fan base outside of the Premiership, it''s irrelevent how big the location is of a Town/City, if it doesn''t have the following, Norwich has the following, and therefore has the potential as you can see from link below.

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/490/

 

[/quote]Thanks West London Canary - very interesting. Do you know how these figures were arrived at/ base on?

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="tom cavendish"]
Can everyone not just accept that Norwich City FC is a medium sized club and the Board have done very well to attract so many people to games regardless of results on the pitch?[/quote]

Unfortunately not Tom.

Some on here have a pantomime view of the world whereby the villains are wrong about everything. It all has to be black or white and everything the board has done/ will do has to be wrong. Because you have made a moderately constructive and supportive point you are now cast as either

1. A board apologist/
2. A relative of the board
3. An employee of the board

and possibly all three. As far as they are concerned you do not question the board in anything it has done and are fully supportive of all its actions. You are happy with poor football/ lack ambition/ are naive/ easily duped and aspire to carnal relations with board members (whether or not they are your relatives).


[/quote]

It certainly seems that way. I give credit to the board for attracting fans to the club even when results have been bad, and the club does lots of very good community and family stuff that many clubs don''t bother to do - both aspects go hand in hand. The club is brilliant in those areas. I would hate to see that destroyed.

The Board don''t select the team, sign players, make substitutions, coach the players etc. They have simply made mistakes in appointing managers (although even Roeder did save the club from certain relegation). Most Boards of clubs make the same mistakes (hence the huge turnover of managers in football). A manager can be good at one club and bad at the next so there is a lot of luck involved. We can just hope that the next manager will be a good one.

 

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="West_London_Canary"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

Some fans talk of the potential of Norwich City, but Norwich can only support a medium sized club as Norwich does not have a huge local population. The stadium is nearly full for most games so Norwich City is not far from its potential off the pitch. Therefore, off the pitch the Board have done a good job to help reach the potential.

Take Bristol for example, Norwich City get higher crowds than Bristol City & Bristol Rovers added together, and Bristol has a massive local population many, many times bigger than Norwich. Go talk to those clubs about the meaning of potential.

[/quote]

Norwich are believed to have the 3rd biggest fan base outside of the Premiership, it''s irrelevent how big the location is of a Town/City, if it doesn''t have the following, Norwich has the following, and therefore has the potential as you can see from link below.

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/490/

[/quote]

Thanks that helps prove my point! The Board have done a great job in realising the potential by attracting fans from a small city and the stadium is nearly full for most games despite results.

[. 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="tom cavendish"]
Can everyone not just accept that Norwich City FC is a medium sized club and the Board have done very well to attract so many people to games regardless of results on the pitch?[/quote]

Unfortunately not Tom.

Some on here have a pantomime view of the world whereby the villains are wrong about everything. It all has to be black or white and everything the board has done/ will do has to be wrong. Because you have made a moderately constructive and supportive point you are now cast as either

1. A board apologist/
2. A relative of the board
3. An employee of the board

and possibly all three. As far as they are concerned you do not question the board in anything it has done and are fully supportive of all its actions. You are happy with poor football/ lack ambition/ are naive/ easily duped and aspire to carnal relations with board members (whether or not they are your relatives).


[/quote]

It certainly seems that way. I give credit to the board for attracting fans to the club even when results have been bad, and the club does lots of very good community and family stuff that many clubs don''t bother to do - both aspects go hand in hand. The club is brilliant in those areas. I would hate to see that destroyed.

The Board don''t select the team, sign players, make substitutions, coach the players etc. They have simply made mistakes in appointing managers (although even Roeder did save the club from certain relegation). Most Boards of clubs make the same mistakes (hence the huge turnover of managers in football). A manager can be good at one club and bad at the next so there is a lot of luck involved. We can just hope that the next manager will be a good one.

 

[/quote]

They do by proxy.......

Gordon Brown might not have created the endless sleaze that surrounds him.... but he is responsible.... He hired the numbnuts...so he is completely culpable.

The Board need horse whipping....

 

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="tom cavendish"]
Can everyone not just accept that Norwich City FC is a medium sized club and the Board have done very well to attract so many people to games regardless of results on the pitch?[/quote]

Unfortunately not Tom.

Some on here have a pantomime view of the world whereby the villains are wrong about everything. It all has to be black or white and everything the board has done/ will do has to be wrong. Because you have made a moderately constructive and supportive point you are now cast as either

1. A board apologist/
2. A relative of the board
3. An employee of the board

and possibly all three. As far as they are concerned you do not question the board in anything it has done and are fully supportive of all its actions. You are happy with poor football/ lack ambition/ are naive/ easily duped and aspire to carnal relations with board members (whether or not they are your relatives).


[/quote]

It certainly seems that way. I give credit to the board for attracting fans to the club even when results have been bad, and the club does lots of very good community and family stuff that many clubs don''t bother to do - both aspects go hand in hand. The club is brilliant in those areas. I would hate to see that destroyed.

The Board don''t select the team, sign players, make substitutions, coach the players etc. They have simply made mistakes in appointing managers (although even Roeder did save the club from certain relegation). Most Boards of clubs make the same mistakes (hence the huge turnover of managers in football). A manager can be good at one club and bad at the next so there is a lot of luck involved. We can just hope that the next manager will be a good one.

 

[/quote]

They do by proxy.......

Gordon Brown might not have created the endless sleaze that surrounds him.... but he is responsible.... He hired the numbnuts...so he is completely culpable.

The Board need horse whipping....

[/quote]

Sure, blame them for appointing bad managers (which must clubs do), but apart from that, they have done a good job in lots of areas of the club.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"]The Board need horse whipping....[/quote]On another thread you stated how you yearned for a bigger penis and wanted to pay more for your women, now you admit a secret urge to horsewhip Munby and Doncaster!

Pervert! [:S]

[. 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"]The Board need horse whipping....[/quote]On another thread you stated how you yearned for a bigger penis and wanted to pay more for your women, now you admit a secret urge to horsewhip Munby and Doncaster!

Pervert! [:S]

[/quote]

There''s nothing wrong with having diverse tastes..........

Ask my therapist.