Cowling - He's still not happy

[canarycol 0]

Just thought Id  bring a  friend  along  he wants  to have a go as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62a3jGQZxe4&feature=related

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="HazzaJet"]The 100,000 target''s been reached!
[/quote]110,000 now, c''mon lads you can get to 200,000. [:D]

[Beauseant 0]

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!

[morty 0]

[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]

[Beauseant 0]

[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]

 

[morty 0]

[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]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="morty"]We''re all going to end up with RSI in our wrists.[/quote]Is that Robbie''s Sexual Infection?[^o)][+o(]

[morty 0]

[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.

[Leedscanary 336]

Twatted him up to 120000 for y''all!

[canarycol 0]

[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

[Go Wash Your Mouth Out Son 0]

What realistic target should we set for 9PM ? 250,000 I think we could get.

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

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

[Ivana_rubyatitz 6]

[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....

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

[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 [:)]

[lappinitup 629]

I''ve worn out two mouses..........

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

[quote user="lappinitup"]I''ve worn out two mouses..........[/quote]

Poor mice [;)]

[DOGGER 0]

[quote user="Attleborough_Canary"]

[quote user="lappinitup"]I''ve worn out two mouses..........[/quote]

Poor mice [;)]

[/quote]

Give them some more cheese!!

[city4eva 207]

Just added a few to take it past 159000

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

[quote user="Champions"]http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/compochester/robbie-cowling

Lets 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?

[morty 0]

[quote user=" CT "][quote user="Champions"]http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/compochester/robbie-cowling

Lets 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.[:|]

[norfolkchance1 0]

Its surprisingly satisfying

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

Our ''friend'' Royston Keane is on there as well.....

[norfolkchance1 0]

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.

[Blue 0]

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".

[canary cherub 1]

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.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[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.

[morty 0]

[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.[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[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...

[morty 0]

[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.[:(]

[Syteanric 1]

[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....