|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 14:50:36 GMT
We want three
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 14:48:48 GMT
Double Dutch xxxx
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 14:46:08 GMT
Superb finish Hoevy you sensual little Dutch diamond
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 14:20:43 GMT
Fuck me that was close, Iverson never moved
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 14:12:58 GMT
Forwards didn’t bother getting in the area, don’t suppose they expected McNally to get that far
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 14:08:16 GMT
Cundo with the bit between his teeth, goan lad
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 13:12:36 GMT
Thompson and Cundle providing the muscle in midfield
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 2:15:53 GMT
France by a mile, if they are in the right place mentally they are the favourites Spain, they look like they used to look before that golden spell when they won everything : good players but lacking killer striker Quarters but maybe no further? Portugal might be more likely to score but are they still beholden to Ronaldo Dutch look terrible The Spanish young players look terrifyingly good tbh. A striker is their obvious issue but if they can spread them through their wide attackers then they can go far. There’s a young lad called Joselu I’ve heard is going to solve their striker problems
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 2:00:00 GMT
Sad news all the same…
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 20, 2024 1:59:28 GMT
By jingo that's a big one for those of us of a certain age. 71 is very young in todays money, I wonder what got him. I have to say - and I used the phrase advisedly - I’ve never heard of him
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 19, 2024 14:58:02 GMT
Bet 365 ,I would bet , have zero interest in a Ladies team. See what odds they’re offering
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 19, 2024 14:22:16 GMT
Utter bollocks, I'm afraid. It was from something released last Sunday in a segment on a podcast. Someone hasn't just Skyped her yesterday asking for her opinion on Josh Laurent and she's slated him (which she hasn't anyway, really). The problem isn't with the comment/s made on the podcast at all (on reflection, some are quite harsh and I'm surprised they passed the editing if much is needed for a generally tame/jokey fan podcast), it's the fact that someone at RS has decided to release it days later in an apparently inflammatory manner. The comments, given the amount of people who actually probably listen to the podcast, would have disappeared into obscurity had someone not decided to dig them up last night. They were not dug up they were posted on the BBC for all to see and reply to. As to whether she said them last week or yesterday isnt important she said what she said at a critical time for our club.You may be happy with influencial broadcasters and pundits to slate/slag off the club at such a time but Im not. Yet on other threads right now you're slagging off the club on a public forum for all and sundry to see and reply to, talking about the club being "shamed into" into paying for a player's medical bills. So it's ok for you but apparently not for Ange, who should be "keeping her gob shut". At what level of influential-ness is criticism of the club ok, and at what point should it start to be silenced? Or does it just depend on where the criticism is coming from?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 19, 2024 12:48:33 GMT
Regardless of whether she is correct in her opinion or not isnt the point.The point is she should keep such controversial opinions which may or may not have a detrmental effect to herself.We need all hands on deck at the moment not somone spouted off without any thought of consequences. One more thing the comment "If anyone feels that my comments are wrong so be it" stinks of smugness and arrogance.If I never see or hear from her again I wont be upset.See ya Ange. The absolute state of this post. Firstly - “such controversial opinions” 😂😂😂 Secondly - so if somebody on a podcast has a “correct” opinion on Stoke but it may have a “detrimental effect”, they should……? Not speak? Lie? Not go on the podcast at all? What about in general, can they speak to people in the pub? On here, are “detrimental” opinions allowed? Shall we have a look through your posting history? Thirdly - do you know what the words smugness and arrogance mean? She’s saying she accepts it if people disagree with her comments, it’s literally the opposite of arrogance Finally - “If I never see or hear from her again I wont be upset”. You do know there are actions you can take to realise this dream of yours? E.g. not clicking on threads with her name in or listening to podcasts on which she appears?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 18, 2024 23:24:46 GMT
I don't think the title of this thread is helpful, constructive or representative. Its unnecessarily sensationalist.. Maybe it just referred to who’d be better starting in midfield satdee
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 18, 2024 21:16:18 GMT
Is there a link to what's been said or has anyone got a summary? Gouranga. She said (on a podcast, days ago) that she didn’t think Laurent was a good captain. Her co-podcaster was far more scathing, using the rather personal phrase he “can’t stand” Laurent, which I think it was ill-advised of Radio Stoke to publicise.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 18, 2024 21:10:40 GMT
Has it been taken down? Haha
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 18, 2024 18:07:32 GMT
I read this fairly throwaway postulation in an article years ago and the idea has always captivated me: “If, in the final 7,000 years of their reign, dinosaurs became hyperintelligent, built a civilization, started asteroid mining, and did so for centuries before forgetting to carry the one on an orbital calculation, thereby sending that famous valedictory six-mile space rock hurtling senselessly toward the Earth themselves — it would be virtually impossible to tell. All we do know is that an asteroid did hit, and that the fossils in the millions of years afterward look very different than in the millions of years prior” The idea being that it's entirely possible that dinosaurs (or some other species) could have evolved to our level of intelligence and civilisation, and beyond, and it would be totally invisible to us now because of the relatively minuscule timeframe and the fact that any evidence of a civilisation would have disappeared long ago. This isn't the right thread for this is it. Well I don't think there is another thread where it would be more appropriate! Graham Hancock has been mentioned a few times on the thread already and of course, his writings are based on the fact that, in his opinion, there was, in pre-history a forgotten human race, that had reached a technological sophistication, of which there is little to no evidence of remaining today. Obviously a suggestion that would have been far more recent than the dinosaur idea but essentially, I think, a suggestion on similar lines.
I’m halfway through this (extremely long) debate between Hancock and a “mainstream” archeology bloke. To be fair I haven’t read any of Hancock’s stuff but I can't say I’ve ever been very convinced by him in interviews. All his arguments seem to lean heavily on his own incredulity and sense of injustice. He gets quite outraged that his ideas are mocked, as if it’s some calculated attack by Big Archeology (who knew that was a thing). I’m no expert but I think it’s probably just that his ideas warrant mockery.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 18, 2024 12:02:34 GMT
It is but look at the progress he's brought to them. Getting rid of him would mean starting all over again. He has progressed them but when you get to that level, the margins of progression become even finer. Looks like they've choked again this season and if does it again next season there will be questions asked. That’s nonsense. Nothing about Arsenal's season could be defined as “choking”. They may well still win the bloody league for a start. Neither they nor Liverpool have any right to be pushing Citeh as close as they have, it’s an overachievement if anything.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 22:57:57 GMT
Yep Barely had a sniff in both games Thought Foden was poor in this game as well. I thought he was excellent. Stuck his penno away adroitly as well, good to see him and Jude both so confident with them
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 22:50:28 GMT
This is not a debate about the value of women's football. It doesn't matter how much you care about it or whether the crowds are 30 or 30 thousand - these are contracted athletes officially representing an elite professional sports club, I can't get my head round how anyone might think it's ok that they have to pick up their own medical bills after getting injured while playing. It's mental. They've only been semi professional for a year. I just think there are 2 different lenses and angles to look at it: 1. Should a sports club owned by billionaires be playing for private surgery for any playing personnel at all levels because they can afford it? 2. Should a women's football team which has just turned semi pro and gets crowds of 250 be entitled to private health care provided by the club? Stoke being rich is unique in this scenario as there are many other clubs competing with them which aren't so wealthy or well known. So if you are just looking at this particular instance from lens 1 then yes fair you can make an argument but it only applies because of the owners wealth. Looking at it through the lens of point 2 gives a slightly different perspective where I think many people would agree that this shouldn't be a given as it simply isnt financially frasible for clubs competing at this level.* There's a reason why sports insurance exist and I imagine many female colleagues and male counterparts playing semi pro probably already have it where they don't have the luxury of representing a club which can cover them themselves. I understand why those looking through lens 1 come to their conclusions and if I just looked at it through this perspective I'd agree. But when you look at point 2 into account you can see why for other clubs it just isn't financially viable and it's only being discussed because of stokes owners wealth. Something which is unrelated to the revenue generated from the women's team. * Plus the more people using private health care the more it fucks the rest of us. As the same MHS doctor you've been waiting 6 months to do your surgery will be using some of their working time to do surgery for the person going private jumping to the front of the queue. It only cuts waiting lists for the rich and shouldn't be normalised. I mean the answer to both questions is resoundingly yes. A professional sports club that can’t organise itself to adequately insure its players probably shouldn’t be running the team in the first place. And it would be a pathetic excuse for any team in the top two divisions to plead poverty on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 21:19:09 GMT
They're downer than a boa's belly Do you think? There's still a relatively simple way out for them? They need four points from two games, AND Burton to lose both, AND Cheltenham to get no more than 3 points from 3 games. They're toast.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 20:59:25 GMT
It was an extremely small sample size and I think people got a bit excited about him doing one thing well (being massive and heading it away). I like him but he's totally unsuited to a four that keeps a high line That is a massive under playing of what Souttar did. He did far more than 'being massive' and heading it away, especially in his short time here. I thought he was great with us, I was on about the reaction to him in the World Cup. And I know that's not literally all he did but I think it's why he gained so much attention
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 20:27:35 GMT
This is not a debate about the value of women's football. It doesn't matter how much you care about it or whether the crowds are 30 or 30 thousand - these are contracted athletes officially representing an elite professional sports club, I can't get my head round how anyone might think it's ok that they have to pick up their own medical bills after getting injured while playing. It's mental. I have no idea how it works, whether the club should insure them, they insure themselves or the club pay for treatment or if it’s up to the NHS. I’d expect the club to sort it out and put measures in place for any unfortunate events like this in the future. As I said earlier, within the sporting director's remit surely... urgent review incoming? Are you there SJW?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 20:16:46 GMT
This is not a debate about the value of women's football. It doesn't matter how much you care about it or whether the crowds are 30 or 30 thousand - these are contracted athletes officially representing an elite professional sports club, I can't get my head round how anyone might think it's ok that they have to pick up their own medical bills after getting injured while playing. It's mental.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 17:46:58 GMT
Because it’s a ridiculous question.My answer One billion dollars *puts little finger to mouth* No it isn't ridiculous to ask how much STOKE CITY should invest in their Ladies team, as it diverts money from the Mens team. The fact that we have wasted money over the years is immaterial. Regarding Bristol City, they should be an inspiration to other similar sized clubs as they play all their home games at Ashton Gate, and if they can get an average gate of 7,000 then surely others can do likewise. Perhaps the likes of Everton and West Ham should study their model. Eh? What money would they be “diverting”? The owners have far more money than they could even hope to spend on the men’s team
|
|
|
Vale.
Apr 17, 2024 17:23:07 GMT
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 17:23:07 GMT
They're downer than a boa's belly
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 17:11:52 GMT
some people on here think the women should be eternally grateful to even get a chance of having a kickaround in the red and white stripes... she was wearing our colours when she got injured we should have a responsibility for her. That's a difference discussion to whether you don't watch women's football, or whatever. **Rightly or wrongly**, it seems it's an issue throughout women's football though, not just Stoke. From what I can see, clubs at that level don't cover players. I mean it's *wrongly*, isn't it. Professional sports teams who contract players to represent them should be paying for their medical treatment when they get injured, surely this isn't a difficult ethical issue to come down upon?
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 17:07:28 GMT
1:05:56 - the definitive "gooaaarn Jon!!"
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 13:55:49 GMT
Have you got time to watch this today? Of course you have. Watch out for cameos from Nigel Johnson, Denis Smith, Gordon Banks, Mama Sidibe, Salop Diao, Ryan Shotton, Danny Collins and Mochael Tonge. Maybe it's because of our current side, but the outstanding performances from Shawcross, Huth and Whelan really stood out, even if they went under the radar at the time. I've watched about eight minutes of that and one thing I will say is thank fuck there was no VAR
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 17, 2024 13:32:43 GMT
At 3-0 my old man who had been the semis in the 70s kept saying “don’t get carried away, I’ve been here before!”
When Walters scored the 4th he looked at me and said “think we’re in the final now…” Bar family stuff best day of my life I felt exactly the same Didn't we all. Where I was at least it was one of the strangest half-time concourse atmospheres I've ever encountered.. it was eerily quiet, people just milling around uneasily, almost unsure what to do with themselves. Like every person there was thinking "this seems good but it just isn't right somehow..."
|
|