canarycol 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Just thought Id bring a friend along he wants to have a go as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62a3jGQZxe4&feature=related Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="HazzaJet"]The 100,000 target''s been reached![/quote]110,000 now, c''mon lads you can get to 200,000. [:D] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beauseant 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Working in the garden, so I''ve minimised the site so that I can give him a few whacks whenever I want a break from "real" work. Out of interest I timed how long it took to land 1000 punches at 3 minutes 20 seconds, so no reason why we can''t get some sort of record here! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Beauseant"]Working in the garden, so I''ve minimised the site so that I can give him a few whacks whenever I want a break from "real" work. Out of interest I timed how long it took to land 1000 punches at 3 minutes 20 seconds, so no reason why we can''t get some sort of record here![/quote]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[insert joke here] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beauseant 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="morty"][quote user="Beauseant"]Working in the garden, so I''ve minimised the site so that I can give him a few whacks whenever I want a break from "real" work. Out of interest I timed how long it took to land 1000 punches at 3 minutes 20 seconds, so no reason why we can''t get some sort of record here![/quote]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[insert joke here][/quote]Lol! BTW, just a reminder that it''s the Pups do tomorrow night........[:P] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Beauseant"]Working in the garden, so I''ve minimised the site so that I can give him a few whacks whenever I want a break from "real" work. Out of interest I timed how long it took to land 1000 punches at 3 minutes 20 seconds, so no reason why we can''t get some sort of record here![/quote]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[insert joke here][/quote]Lol! BTW, just a reminder that it''s the Pups do tomorrow night........[:P] [/quote]Sh it, thanks for reminding me, I''ll write it on a post-it.[:P] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="morty"]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[/quote]Is that Robbie''s Sexual Infection?[^o)][+o(] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[/quote]Is that Robbie''s Sexual Infection?[^o)][+o(][/quote]Ewwww dude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leedscanary 337 Posted June 3, 2010 Twatted him up to 120000 for y''all! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canarycol 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[/quote]Is that Robbie''s Sexual Infection?[^o)][+o(][/quote]well he is a banker right ??? I am hard of hearing but I heard this is what he is when I heard some city fans talking about him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Go Wash Your Mouth Out Son 0 Posted June 3, 2010 What realistic target should we set for 9PM ? 250,000 I think we could get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Attleborough_Canary 65 Posted June 3, 2010 There is even a Facebook group dedicated to the man! Apt title too!http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/group.php?gid=236544103416&ref=ts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ivana_rubyatitz 6 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Go Wash Your Mouth Out Son"]What realistic target should we set for 9PM ? 250,000 I think we could get.[/quote]We are fast approaching the 150k mark already.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Attleborough_Canary 65 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Pboro_Canary"][quote user="Go Wash Your Mouth Out Son"]What realistic target should we set for 9PM ? 250,000 I think we could get.[/quote]We are fast approaching the 150k mark already....[/quote]Quite worrying that everyone has such fluid wrist movement [:)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted June 3, 2010 I''ve worn out two mouses.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Attleborough_Canary 65 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="lappinitup"]I''ve worn out two mouses..........[/quote]Poor mice [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DOGGER 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Attleborough_Canary"][quote user="lappinitup"]I''ve worn out two mouses..........[/quote]Poor mice [;)][/quote]Give them some more cheese!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
city4eva 209 Posted June 3, 2010 Just added a few to take it past 159000 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InLambertWeTrust! 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Champions"]http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/compochester/robbie-cowlingLets get him to number one punched, 17th already, with 3802 punches [:D][/quote]Where is the list that shows how many times an individual has been punched? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user=" CT "][quote user="Champions"]http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/compochester/robbie-cowlingLets get him to number one punched, 17th already, with 3802 punches [:D][/quote]Where is the list that shows how many times an individual has been punched?[/quote]Click on the link.[:|] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkchance1 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Its surprisingly satisfying Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InLambertWeTrust! 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Our ''friend'' Royston Keane is on there as well..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkchance1 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Wouldn''t you just love it if he appealed and our fine was reduced. In the same way Rio Ferdinands appeal was extended because it was deemed frivolous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blue 0 Posted June 3, 2010 A couple of points from me, in case you happen to be interested:1. Cowling is a P***k. Everyone living near Colchester knows that. He has even made Tiptree United rename themselves after one of his companies after muscling his way onto its board a few years ago!2. Cowling p*ssed me of when they were momentarily looking like getting close to the premiership whilst still at Layer Road. He was asked where they would play home games given LR would not pass the regulations. "At Portman Road" came the answer. Seems a bit presumptious I thought - surely he can''t just decide himself? so I asked ITFC. Had they been approached? No. If approached would they have to accept (i.e. any rules)? No. Would they be likely to accept? Probably short term for the right fees, but would be worried about the pitch if its a bad winter, so doubtful they''d sign up for anythigg more than say 3 months at a time. So, Mr Cowling what was that "at Portman Road" statement??3. What other team can you name where the council actually paid for the new ground to be built and gives it to the club at minimal rent? Surely that is distorting fair play. Most other clubs have to finance their own ground improvements or new stadium build through their own channels! I wonder how many Colchester council tax payers realise that their tax has gone to a club that 99% of them (given attendances of <5,000) don''t support?I feel better now!Still, onto the matter at hand. Disappointed that NCFC has been found guilty of breeching code 20 or whatever it was - not particularly good PR within th football world for a club that! However the penalty is whatever the judge decides and that should close the matter - let''s face it when do we all agree on the level of penalties ever handed out in football matters (or outside come to that)? One thing for sure is that you can''t use the word "consistent". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted June 3, 2010 There''s a fine line between an appeal and dissent. If he thinks Col Us compensation is inadequate that''s an appeal, but the size of the fine or points deduction (or lack of it) has no direct effect on Col U since we will not be in the same division next year. That''s dissent in my book, he''s questioning the committee''s judgement. I hope he gets a fine for bringing the game into disrepute. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,556 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]Ha Ha'' nice one Purple and completely understandable! Have a good time.[/quote]---Thanks, GPB, it was a very pleasant afternoon,[ip] although I did feel a bit overdressed cycling past the nudist colony...[:$]And I see you got your answer, so I don''t have to feel guilty about neglecting my duties on this board as resident geek/nerd/wonk![8-|]For what it''s worth I think Cowling would be wise to drop any idea of an appeal, although I don''t blame him for being angered by the statement we issued in the wake of the tribunal''s decision. It was badly misjudged, reading like one long whinge. And it enabled Cowling to retaliate by publishing what we''d apparently offered in compensation - £160,000, then £126,000, then £180,000, then £213,000.Now it''s not entirely clear whether those figures referred to compensation for Lambert alone or all three, because Cowling has sometimes used "Lambert" to mean all three. And these figures are coming from Cowling but I suspect strongly they are truthful for this reason. If they hadn''t been McNally could have used his latest interview in today''s EDP to deny them. He didn''t and I think that can be taken as strong evidence that they accurate.And the point is that if they are, then it is hardly surprising that Cowling took us to a tribunal. Even the final, final, final £213,000 (even IF it was only for Lambert) has to be at least £100,000 less than the tribunal awarded (on the basis that the great majority of the £425,000 will have been for Lambert alone). And if the £213,000 was for all three then it''s half what was awarded.The bottom line here is that whatever one thinks of Cowling''s public pronouncements, his ACTIONS were justified. We HAD broken the rules and we HAD offered way less than was appropriate in the way of compensation. And as a result of us playing hardball (a deliberate attempt to get away from "little Norwich"?) it is possible we ended up paying more than we needed to. This is quite unknowable, but it is distinctly possible that if we''d offered a reasonable sum to start with then Cowling would have been amenable to a deal. Saving loads of legal costs into the bargain, of course, as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]Ha Ha'' nice one Purple and completely understandable! Have a good time.[/quote]---Thanks, GPB, it was a very pleasant afternoon,[ip] although I did feel a bit overdressed cycling past the nudist colony...[:$]And I see you got your answer, so I don''t have to feel guilty about neglecting my duties on this board as resident geek/nerd/wonk![8-|]For what it''s worth I think Cowling would be wise to drop any idea of an appeal, although I don''t blame him for being angered by the statement we issued in the wake of the tribunal''s decision. It was badly misjudged, reading like one long whinge. And it enabled Cowling to retaliate by publishing what we''d apparently offered in compensation - £160,000, then £126,000, then £180,000, then £213,000.Now it''s not entirely clear whether those figures referred to compensation for Lambert alone or all three, because Cowling has sometimes used "Lambert" to mean all three. And these figures are coming from Cowling but I suspect strongly they are truthful for this reason. If they hadn''t been McNally could have used his latest interview in today''s EDP to deny them. He didn''t and I think that can be taken as strong evidence that they accurate.And the point is that if they are, then it is hardly surprising that Cowling took us to a tribunal. Even the final, final, final £213,000 (even IF it was only for Lambert) has to be at least £100,000 less than the tribunal awarded (on the basis that the great majority of the £425,000 will have been for Lambert alone). And if the £213,000 was for all three then it''s half what was awarded.The bottom line here is that whatever one thinks of Cowling''s public pronouncements, his ACTIONS were justified. We HAD broken the rules and we HAD offered way less than was appropriate in the way of compensation. And as a result of us playing hardball (a deliberate attempt to get away from "little Norwich"?) it is possible we ended up paying more than we needed to. This is quite unknowable, but it is distinctly possible that if we''d offered a reasonable sum to start with then Cowling would have been amenable to a deal. Saving loads of legal costs into the bargain, of course, as well.[/quote]Binner.[;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,556 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]Ha Ha'' nice one Purple and completely understandable! Have a good time.[/quote]---Thanks, GPB, it was a very pleasant afternoon,[ip] although I did feel a bit overdressed cycling past the nudist colony...[:$]And I see you got your answer, so I don''t have to feel guilty about neglecting my duties on this board as resident geek/nerd/wonk![8-|]For what it''s worth I think Cowling would be wise to drop any idea of an appeal, although I don''t blame him for being angered by the statement we issued in the wake of the tribunal''s decision. It was badly misjudged, reading like one long whinge. And it enabled Cowling to retaliate by publishing what we''d apparently offered in compensation - £160,000, then £126,000, then £180,000, then £213,000.Now it''s not entirely clear whether those figures referred to compensation for Lambert alone or all three, because Cowling has sometimes used "Lambert" to mean all three. And these figures are coming from Cowling but I suspect strongly they are truthful for this reason. If they hadn''t been McNally could have used his latest interview in today''s EDP to deny them. He didn''t and I think that can be taken as strong evidence that they accurate.And the point is that if they are, then it is hardly surprising that Cowling took us to a tribunal. Even the final, final, final £213,000 (even IF it was only for Lambert) has to be at least £100,000 less than the tribunal awarded (on the basis that the great majority of the £425,000 will have been for Lambert alone). And if the £213,000 was for all three then it''s half what was awarded.The bottom line here is that whatever one thinks of Cowling''s public pronouncements, his ACTIONS were justified. We HAD broken the rules and we HAD offered way less than was appropriate in the way of compensation. And as a result of us playing hardball (a deliberate attempt to get away from "little Norwich"?) it is possible we ended up paying more than we needed to. This is quite unknowable, but it is distinctly possible that if we''d offered a reasonable sum to start with then Cowling would have been amenable to a deal. Saving loads of legal costs into the bargain, of course, as well.[/quote]Binner.[;)][/quote]You''re just envious about the nudist colony... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]Ha Ha'' nice one Purple and completely understandable! Have a good time.[/quote]---Thanks, GPB, it was a very pleasant afternoon,[ip] although I did feel a bit overdressed cycling past the nudist colony...[:$]And I see you got your answer, so I don''t have to feel guilty about neglecting my duties on this board as resident geek/nerd/wonk![8-|]For what it''s worth I think Cowling would be wise to drop any idea of an appeal, although I don''t blame him for being angered by the statement we issued in the wake of the tribunal''s decision. It was badly misjudged, reading like one long whinge. And it enabled Cowling to retaliate by publishing what we''d apparently offered in compensation - £160,000, then £126,000, then £180,000, then £213,000.Now it''s not entirely clear whether those figures referred to compensation for Lambert alone or all three, because Cowling has sometimes used "Lambert" to mean all three. And these figures are coming from Cowling but I suspect strongly they are truthful for this reason. If they hadn''t been McNally could have used his latest interview in today''s EDP to deny them. He didn''t and I think that can be taken as strong evidence that they accurate.And the point is that if they are, then it is hardly surprising that Cowling took us to a tribunal. Even the final, final, final £213,000 (even IF it was only for Lambert) has to be at least £100,000 less than the tribunal awarded (on the basis that the great majority of the £425,000 will have been for Lambert alone). And if the £213,000 was for all three then it''s half what was awarded.The bottom line here is that whatever one thinks of Cowling''s public pronouncements, his ACTIONS were justified. We HAD broken the rules and we HAD offered way less than was appropriate in the way of compensation. And as a result of us playing hardball (a deliberate attempt to get away from "little Norwich"?) it is possible we ended up paying more than we needed to. This is quite unknowable, but it is distinctly possible that if we''d offered a reasonable sum to start with then Cowling would have been amenable to a deal. Saving loads of legal costs into the bargain, of course, as well.[/quote]Binner.[;)][/quote]You''re just envious about the nudist colony...[/quote]Meh, busted.[:(] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syteanric 1 Posted June 3, 2010 [quote user="Blue"]A couple of points from me, in case you happen to be interested:1. Cowling is a P***k. Everyone living near Colchester knows that. He has even made Tiptree United rename themselves after one of his companies after muscling his way onto its board a few years ago!2. Cowling p*ssed me of when they were momentarily looking like getting close to the premiership whilst still at Layer Road. He was asked where they would play home games given LR would not pass the regulations. "At Portman Road" came the answer. Seems a bit presumptious I thought - surely he can''t just decide himself? so I asked ITFC. Had they been approached? No. If approached would they have to accept (i.e. any rules)? No. Would they be likely to accept? Probably short term for the right fees, but would be worried about the pitch if its a bad winter, so doubtful they''d sign up for anythigg more than say 3 months at a time. So, Mr Cowling what was that "at Portman Road" statement??3. What other team can you name where the council actually paid for the new ground to be built and gives it to the club at minimal rent? Surely that is distorting fair play. Most other clubs have to finance their own ground improvements or new stadium build through their own channels! I wonder how many Colchester council tax payers realise that their tax has gone to a club that 99% of them (given attendances of <5,000) don''t support?I feel better now!Still, onto the matter at hand. Disappointed that NCFC has been found guilty of breeching code 20 or whatever it was - not particularly good PR within th football world for a club that! However the penalty is whatever the judge decides and that should close the matter - let''s face it when do we all agree on the level of penalties ever handed out in football matters (or outside come to that)? One thing for sure is that you can''t use the word "consistent".[/quote]points 1 and 2 are interesting and just prove how much of an idiot Cowling actually is!point 3... i can think of a team not to far from here who rent their ground from the council.... they wear blue and white too.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites