|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:36:26 GMT
It was not up to Dublin to decide on which positions needed filling - he just provided names and even if he couldn't provide any names it was still up to the manager and the TD/SD to decide on priorities and fill any gaps. He obviously came up with the wrong names then. If he came up with the wrong names it was still up to Martin and Neil to fill in the gaps which for whatever reason they chose not to do. And anyway how do you know if he came up with the wrong names? It was up to Martin to sign them. You can blame Dublin for the players he brought in who didn't make the grade but you can't blame him for the gaps in the squad - that wasnt his job.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:29:55 GMT
And that’s on me!!!?? There’s a few posters on here who are taking any possible opportunity to snipe at the management. Making groundless assumptions based on pure conjecture. Then there’s the majority who are prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and wait and see. It's not based on pure conjecture and the more you say it doesn't make it so. As been pointed out by various posters opinions are based on the actions taken by the owners over 6 or 7 seasons. Actions that have led to very disappointing seasons, particularly in the Championship. Personally believe that the owners have repeatedly made same errors for 9 seasons. Until recently the owners have repeated the same mistake of appointing a god manager who subsequently proved the job was too big for one man while the rest of the footballing world cracked on with modernising the backroom and dividing up responsibilities to provide better focus and specialisation. The owners have made a complete pig's ear of moving to a more modern structure and it may not work out but at least it isn't just doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. May as well at least see how it pans out rather than just assume the worst especially as it isn't just rinse and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:18:29 GMT
That will be the Ben Gibson who just played 34 times for a club that last season ended up in the playoffs. What the fuck has geography got to do with it? It’s almost as if I’ve got previous for incessant sarcasm. Whoosh...hats off sir...
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:16:38 GMT
So basically your opinion on Walters is based solely on your prejudices about him as a player and you won't even give him credit when he actually succeeds in the job he was given. Why the hell should anyone take your opinions seriously when even by your own admission you are just rehashing your prejudices and ignoring any actual real workd evidence that doesn't stack with what you have already decided? There isn’t any real work evidence. The first real evidence was Positive(keeper signing) the second negative(Dublin) the noises on players we’re being linked with is imo negative. Of course I have preferences and prejudices everyone does. That won’t lead to me ignoring anything I see as positive that’s just bloody minded and I just aren’t. Walters was brought in to rally the troops and help save the team from relegation. And he rallied the troops and we avoided relegation. He succeeded in the job he was asked to do. What he acheived as interim TD has no bearing on what he will acheive as permanent SD but I'm prepared to judge him on his actual acheivements in the role. By your own admission you are judging Walters ability as a permanent SD on his playing career and association with the Pulus era. That isn't being bloody minded that's just blind prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 8:03:37 GMT
Ben Gibson there we go that’s more like it Jon. Now we’ve got Jared out who knows where our scouting could take us, we could go as far north as Sunderland and god forbid we could also look at players from the Southampton area, it’s far fetched I know but you have to be ambitious sometimes don’t you. That will be the Ben Gibson who just played 34 times for a club that last season ended up in the playoffs. What the fuck has geography got to do with it?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:56:28 GMT
Clearly the atmosphere in the background was deteriorating under Martin and Walters was brought in as a short term appointment to rally the troops (including the supporters) - which he succeeded in doing. It may have been a populatist appointment but it was hardly dumb given it actually worked. You can judge what Waters achieved in a short term job by what he acheived in the short term. And he succeeded. Whether he can succeed in a job that is inherently to do with the long term is a completely different matter and can only be judged in the medium/long term. It would be wrong for me to say Walters will succeed as permanent SD based on what he did as interim but its equally nonsense to claim he isn't up to the job when there is zero evidence of his acheivements in the job. Sorry not willing to give him much credit for how the season ended it was nothing to do with his role again that’s just populist nonsense. There’s no evidence that anything he did or said made any difference to anything and he certainly had no impact on the squad. It comes down to people liking him so seeing something that isn’t there. I’m not able to do that because I don’t like what I associate him with and didn’t think much of him as a player so for me he’s just a SD who got the job because of his name. So basically your opinion on Walters is based solely on your prejudices about him as a player and you won't even give him credit when he actually succeeds in the job he was given. Why the hell should anyone take your opinions seriously when even by your own admission you are just rehashing your prejudices and ignoring any actual real workd evidence that doesn't stack with what you have already decided?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:17:44 GMT
TD/SD is a long term appointment - the only way you can make a judgement on one within six months of their appointment (unless things immediately go tits up - which they haven't) is to reel off your preconceptions and prejudices. Not saying it will either work or it won’t but there just wasn’t any basis for the appointment whatsoever. Even when we’ve taken a punt on manager/hc they’ve got some sort of track record. This appointment was made because it would be popular with a section of the fan base dumbed down populism. Clearly the atmosphere in the background was deteriorating under Martin and Walters was brought in as a short term appointment to rally the troops (including the supporters) - which he succeeded in doing. It may have been a populatist appointment but it was hardly dumb given it actually worked. You can judge what Waters achieved in a short term job by what he acheived in the short term. And he succeeded. Whether he can succeed in a job that is inherently to do with the long term is a completely different matter and can only be judged in the medium/long term. It would be wrong for me to say Walters will succeed as permanent SD based on what he did as interim but its equally nonsense to claim he isn't up to the job when there is zero evidence of his acheivements in the job.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:07:19 GMT
Last pre-season it felt like the transfer policy was to build for the medium/long term. This time round with the speculation around Coady and Rodriguez it feels the thinking is much more short term - bringing in players who might not be round for long to have a tilt at promotion this coming season.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 7:00:48 GMT
When he was brought in as an interim TD you had a point - interim TD makes no sense and all he could be was a cheerleader. Having made him permanent he can't afford to be just a cheerleader and by the sounds of it he is getting hands on. Whether he will be good at the job remains to be seen. It was a daft appointment by terrible owners. TD/SD is a long term appointment - the only way you can make a judgement on one within six months of their appointment (unless things immediately go tits up - which they haven't) is to reel off your preconceptions and prejudices.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 6:39:39 GMT
Jon Boy walks into the club and helps turn around a squad doing a great impression of the Titanic. Gets the crowd fired up and packs the stadium. Backs the manager and helps him settle in. Susses out the frauds and snake oil salesmen and recruits the people who can talk the talk and walk the walk. Exciting times. PS Our first signing is a Swedish bloke. He’s a glorified cheerleader. When he was brought in as an interim TD you had a point - interim TD makes no sense and all he could be was a cheerleader. Having made him permanent he can't afford to be just a cheerleader and by the sounds of it he is getting hands on. Whether he will be good at the job remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 21, 2024 6:30:20 GMT
Perhaps Jon's thanked him for Manhoef, Junho and Burger, but sacked him for dereliction of duty in not bringing in a left back, Centre half and centre forward of any quality. It was not up to Dublin to decide on which positions needed filling - he just provided names and even if he couldn't provide any names it was still up to the manager and the TD/SD to decide on priorities and fill any gaps.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 17:06:21 GMT
Not press ganging anyone - just pointing out that to all and intent and purpose you are defending a rapist and your claims about being neutral about Trump are utter nonsense. It isn't my fault your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny or that you can't sustain a rational argument without resorting to insults and emojis. Not defended a rapist, don't even like Trump. I simply questioned the soundness of a conviction like this. The fact it is trump is irrelevant. Yet you and your wrong think cartel wet yourselves on the spot and make all sorts of allegations against me, which I see you're still doing. Be better stop trying to bully people. And no point trying to bully me anyway cos all it does is make me laugh at how triggered you get. So triggered you send me bible length monologues of guff 😆 go bore someone else. Bully you? Seriously? All I've done is point out the holes in your argument. It's you who has given up on any attempt to rationally backup your position and resorted to petty insults, not me.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 16:56:42 GMT
Hoist by his own Petard springs to mind It's not uncommon for Women to not report a Rape Assault (Digital Penetration) to Police for any manner of reasons. She did tell 2 of her friends at the time. The case never went to the Attorney's Office simply because E Jean Carroll didn't report it to the Police and the Criminal Statute of Limitations ran out after 5 years E Jean Carroll write a memoir in 2019 claiming Trump had Raped her. Trump responded by calling her a liar and claimed it never happened. This opened up a new window limited only from the time Trump called her a liar in 2019 which allowed E Jean Carroll to sue for Defamation. Note Trump never tried to sue E Jean Carroll for Defamation other than to mouth off on Twitter In New York in cases of Sexual Assault Rule 415 allows the accuser to bring evidence of the defendants past behaviour. Before trial Trump's Lawyers tried to exclude the infamous Access Hollywood tape in which Trump can be heard saying “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said, including “grab ‘em by the pussy.” Fucked over by his own Braggadocio Trump's Lawyers were also unsuccessful in excluding testimony from 2 other women who claimed Trump had raped them Trump's Lawyers originally tried to have the case thrown out as he was President at the time he called E Jean Carroll a liar and denied the claims. Do I think Trump would have been Criminally Convicted of Rape back in the Day, probably not. Am I surprised that Trump was convicted twice by a Jury in a Civil Trial "On the Balance of Probability" not at all In any case Trump has the opportunity to overturn both verdicts as he has indicated he will appeal, he doesn't always follow through on his outpourings Yup I agree with all of that and as I said, there wouldn't have been enough for me, if I had been on the jury. Personally I find "on the balance of probability" a bit of a strange concept, when it comes to a person's guilt. As we know, there are plenty of people out there, who would quite easily convict "on the balance of probability" simply based on a person's skin colour. The jury in a civil trial are still vetted for bias and the balance of probability is still based on the evidence presented and not on personal preference. Are you suggesting the beyond reasonable doubt standard should be adopted in civil cases? That would be a fundamental change in both the US and UK legal systems and would massively decrease the number of civil prosecutions which in turn would work to the advantage of the rich and powerful. Is that really a good idea?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 16:32:49 GMT
It was Martin that oversaw recruitment - Jared's job was to identify players and as other's have said it was clearly Neil's choices that had the higher failure rate. Jared unearthed some gems. Having said that it's impossible to criticise the decision until we know his replacement and get to see if his track record is any better or worse. Reeks of someone wanting to build their own clique. So who exactly is building a clique? I'd be concerned if it is Schumacher who leads on the appointment but it makes perfect sense if Walters leads on the decision - that's his job. This is far from ideal but the situation isn't Walters or Schumacher's fault - the club got the order of appointments completely wrong. It should have been SD, HC, HoR - we went HoR, HD, SD which is completely back to front.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 15:39:11 GMT
He had to go. Put the 4 / 5 decent signings to one side and he's a head that oversaw the selection and purchase of 10 substandard and 10 garbage players. It was Martin that oversaw recruitment - Jared's job was to identify players and as other's have said it was clearly Neil's choices that had the higher failure rate. Jared unearthed some gems. Having said that it's impossible to criticise the decision until we know his replacement and get to see if his track record is any better or worse.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 15:33:37 GMT
So it looks like we are once again allowing a manger to run the show and no doubt at some point within the next 18 months we will back to sacking everybody and starting this madness all over again. Are we? This decision would have been made by Walters as Sporting Director (who made the announcement on the club website), not the Head Coach. I'm sure Schumacher will have been consulted but there is no evidence that it was his decision.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 10:56:06 GMT
As I understand it the main reason Carroll didn't take the matter to a criminal court was because she was afraid of the consequences - which is why many women choose not to report rape and the situation was way worse before the Weinstein case when powerful men like Trump found themselves on a situation where they could just get away with it - as he himself bragged about in his pussy grabbing tape -see www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1172684266/trump-attorney-asks-e-jean-carroll-why-it-took-decades-to-accuse-his-client-of-r. Carroll took out a civil case against Trump for defamation - Trump repeatedly accused Carroll of lying about being sexually assaulted by him. At that point in time there was no way a criminal case would stick so her only legal redress was a civil case. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong the legal position is that the standard of proof is balance of probability for a civil case in part because the consequences are far less than for a criminal conviction (the outcome is usually a fine and restoration of the plainiffs reputation rather than a jail sentence). If you got rid of the distinction you would effectively allow many people, particularly the rich and powerful, to be beyond the law. After the first case the State of New York introduced a law which allowed rape survivors to take out a civil prosecution against their attackers, presumably in recognition that pre-Weinstein the victims of rape were not properly served by the justice system. When Trump continued to defame Carroll she took out another civil case and added rape and sexual battery to the claim as provided fir by the new law. Trump was found guilty of defamation and sexual battery but not rape on the technicality that the definition of rape on New York state is penetration of the vagina by a penis, not a finger as in this case. The judge went on to clarify that this was purely a legal distinction and that in the common understanding of the term Trump was deemed to have raped Carroll. There are three distinct things here; 1 Did Trump actually rape Carroll. Given the circumstances the only people who know that with absolute certainty are Trump and Carroll and that is true of the vast majority of rape cases. If you apply that standard of certainty virtually no one would ever be convicted of rape. 2 Did a jury find Trump guilty of rape to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? No - the matter never went to a criminal court and given the passage of time as the law stands it never will. 3 Did a jury find Trump guilty of sexual battery to the standard of balance of probability? Yes. Did it pass the legal definition of rape in New York State? No? Is it reasonable to claim Trump raped Carroll in the everyday sense of what is understood by rape? Yes. Is Carroll within her rights to claim that Trump raped her? Yes - that is precisely what the second case confirmed. So can I or anyone else claim with absolute certainty that Trump raped Carroll? No. So can I and anyone else claim within that on the balance of probability Trump raped Carroll? Yes. The thing is the standard of judgement we all make on any subject where we were not present is based on the balance of probability, not absolute certainty. What Mickey was claiming is that he was the one being neutral about Trump by refusing to accept he is a rapist. That is not a neutral position - its ignoring the judgement of two separate juries that on the balance of probability he did rape Carrol in the common understanding of what constitutes rape. Completely disregarding the civil justice system is not the act if so one being neutral. So do you really want to roll back the legal system to allow the likes of Trump to get away with doing to women what he did to Carroll? The easiest triggering on planet earth. Mention Trump and yoos and your bullying press ganging mates all piss your knickers. You've spent half an hour typing that guff. Get a life chief its sunny outside 😆 Not press ganging anyone - just pointing out that to all and intent and purpose you are defending a rapist and your claims about being neutral about Trump are utter nonsense. It isn't my fault your position doesn't stand up to scrutiny or that you can't sustain a rational argument without resorting to insults and emojis.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 20, 2024 8:21:07 GMT
What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating that he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying. I think I'm with Mickey on this one, although I'm quite open to being convinced the other way. You said ... "Trump's defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it." Well if he didn't do it, what other evidence are you expecting him to have? If a copper came and banged on my door this afternoon and made the same accusation against me, what could I possibly do but say that I didn't do it? And it appears to me, that her 'evidence', is pretty much based on the fact that she told two mates, 30 years ago, that she had been raped by a very famous person, how do we know she wasn't lying to her friends at the time? It would appear, that somebody could tell two of her friends that she was raped by say, I dunno, Prince Harry. Do nothing about it whatsoever and then in twenty or thirty years time, come forward with the same accusation and we would then apparently have enough 'evidence' to nail Harry. Now Trump may well be guilty (I suspect he is) but it seems to me, that the bar has been set incredibly low in terms of what evidence is required to 'prove' him so. Indeed, wasn't the reason that the case didn't ever go to criminal trial, was precisely BECAUSE the Attorney's Office didn't think there was sufficient evidence to prosecute? Reading Mickey's posts, it seems to me, that he's actually more concerned with the 'principle' of how this conviction has been reached, rather than this specific case per se. As I understand it the main reason Carroll didn't take the matter to a criminal court was because she was afraid of the consequences - which is why many women choose not to report rape and the situation was way worse before the Weinstein case when powerful men like Trump found themselves on a situation where they could just get away with it - as he himself bragged about in his pussy grabbing tape -see www.npr.org/2023/04/28/1172684266/trump-attorney-asks-e-jean-carroll-why-it-took-decades-to-accuse-his-client-of-r. Carroll took out a civil case against Trump for defamation - Trump repeatedly accused Carroll of lying about being sexually assaulted by him. At that point in time there was no way a criminal case would stick so her only legal redress was a civil case. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong the legal position is that the standard of proof is balance of probability for a civil case in part because the consequences are far less than for a criminal conviction (the outcome is usually a fine and restoration of the plainiffs reputation rather than a jail sentence). If you got rid of the distinction you would effectively allow many people, particularly the rich and powerful, to be beyond the law. After the first case the State of New York introduced a law which allowed rape survivors to take out a civil prosecution against their attackers, presumably in recognition that pre-Weinstein the victims of rape were not properly served by the justice system. When Trump continued to defame Carroll she took out another civil case and added rape and sexual battery to the claim as provided fir by the new law. Trump was found guilty of defamation and sexual battery but not rape on the technicality that the definition of rape on New York state is penetration of the vagina by a penis, not a finger as in this case. The judge went on to clarify that this was purely a legal distinction and that in the common understanding of the term Trump was deemed to have raped Carroll. There are three distinct things here; 1 Did Trump actually rape Carroll. Given the circumstances the only people who know that with absolute certainty are Trump and Carroll and that is true of the vast majority of rape cases. If you apply that standard of certainty virtually no one would ever be convicted of rape. 2 Did a jury find Trump guilty of rape to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt? No - the matter never went to a criminal court and given the passage of time as the law stands it never will. 3 Did a jury find Trump guilty of sexual battery to the standard of balance of probability? Yes. Did it pass the legal definition of rape in New York State? No? Is it reasonable to claim Trump raped Carroll in the everyday sense of what is understood by rape? Yes. Is Carroll within her rights to claim that Trump raped her? Yes - that is precisely what the second case confirmed. So can I or anyone else claim with absolute certainty that Trump raped Carroll? No. So can I and anyone else claim within that on the balance of probability Trump raped Carroll? Yes. The thing is the standard of judgement we all make on any subject where we were not present is based on the balance of probability, not absolute certainty. What Mickey was claiming is that he was the one being neutral about Trump by refusing to accept he is a rapist. That is not a neutral position - its ignoring the judgement of two separate juries that on the balance of probability he did rape Carrol in the common understanding of what constitutes rape. Completely disregarding the civil justice system is not the act if so one being neutral. So do you really want to roll back the legal system to allow the likes of Trump to get away with doing to women what he did to Carroll?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 19, 2024 11:58:12 GMT
Surprised the lefty pile on took so long 😆 I stand by every last word I said. No evidence, zero. Nothing. Just an accusation decades later from someone who couldn't even remember the year it supposedly happened. It is not how justice should be served or we could all be fucked. And there have been some tasteless character assassinations here when all I am doing is pointing out a very obvious legal flaw in how justice has apparently been delivered. Unsurprising however. Grow up... What exactly do you count as evidence? Carroll testified under oath what happened to her. She reported what happened to her at the time to 2 friends who both came forward and corroborated what she told them under oath. Two other women came forward and testified to being assaulted by Trump. Trumps defence was based solely on him repeating he didn't do it. So one of them was lying. The jury made a decision on the available evidence and chose to believe Carroll. If you had your way virtually no woman would ever get a conviction of rape and whether you like it or not the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find Trump guilty. You are not being neutral. You are denying Carroll and other women subjected to predatory sexual behaviour to have any chance of getting redress in a court of law by putting an impossibly high standard on what can be considered as "evidence". Fortunately the legal system in the US and UK have chosen to ignore your advice and allow juries to listen to women and make a judgement on their testimony and not assume it is they who are lying.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 19, 2024 10:26:54 GMT
How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape. So he couldn't be tried in a criminal case because of statute of limitations because it took place in 1996 or possibly 1995 because miss Carroll can't actually remember. She also claimed to be wearing something that hadn't even been manufactured at that point in time. It went to a civil case because NY introduced a special new law to allow a civil case to proceed. There was no evidence, no cctv just the word of miss Carroll that he assaulted her. NY is one of the most democratic places on the planet. He received a fine, 80m dollars, which even honest Democrats agree was ridiculous. So let's propose this happened to your brother or best mate. Are you honestly now going to agree that your bro or best mate is defo a rapist. He was convicted of defamation and sexual assault but you're going to say and agree my brother or mate is a rapist? Speak to lawyer, you're confused. Oggy might be able to help you... So presumably the judge in the case was also confused when he clarified in no uncertain terms that a jury had found Trump guilty of rape www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/. Yes it was a civil trial where the standard for a guilty verdict is the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt but that means a jury having listened to the evidence came to the conclusion that Trump did rape Carroll. The neutral position on the matter is to accept the judgement of the jury. Refusing to accept the jury's judgement is not a neutral act - its refusing to accept that the jury was right based purely on you wanting to make a point on a message board. So as I said- you are not being neutral you are turning a blind eye to rape. You point about it being a friend or relative is actually quite alarming - it implies your relationship to a potential rapist is supposed to override what may have actually happened which just confirms your claim to be neutral as utter nonsense. You are prepapared to believe someone is innocent of rape before the evidence has been assessesd and in the case of Trump even after they have been found guilty.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 18, 2024 17:48:08 GMT
Too obvious. Has to be aliens using a pointlessly complex technology nobody has heard of that defies the laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 18, 2024 17:41:28 GMT
A large donation to the tories seems to do the trick Or tell Boris Johnson Macari is his illegitimate son?
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 18, 2024 17:24:19 GMT
Don't forget a lot of people said Shaq was unfit until he took off his shirt! Shaq wasn’t at all unfit he just wasn’t an auxiliary FB. Managers/coaches are always trying to be too secure and saddling attacking players with core defensive responsibilities. This should not be necessary. Good attackers will take the pressure off adequate defenders. Its the other way round. Managers saddle attacking players with defensive duties when the defence is barely adequate. Good defenders allow the midfield to support the attack. The best attacking teams have very good defenders behind them to give them the leeway to attack.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 18, 2024 9:38:48 GMT
Why? Is it the aging squad or lack of money and now below Ipswich ? Ageing squad, the parachute payments stopping. It nearly relegated us. Actually it could end up worse for Norwich. We made the mistake of thinking we could get promoted in the first year but sacked Rowett mid season and started to downsize to manage our budget. If you keep going for it in years 2 and 3 and still don't get promoted you are really in the shit. If Norwich haven't managed their budget on the basis they might be in the Championship for 4 or more years they are in big trouble.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 17, 2024 10:10:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 17, 2024 8:19:11 GMT
We are coming up to a general election so it's time to dust off the Tory Election Playbook. Now the evils of a progressive education has been ticked off we can move on to dole scroungers and tougher sentencing for litter louts. Starmer has 'Crack down on anti-social behaviour' and 'Create a border control force' as 2 of his 6 pledges. Labour have learned that promising people what they wants wins votes. Labour will win because there's is a promise and the Tory party are sitting on a failed record. I agree Labour are doing exactly what the Tories have been doing for years - work out what people want to hear and tell them they'll do it. I agree it will probably work but its still bollocks. The only difference is that Labour are being patronising and the Tories are just out and out lying bastards.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 17, 2024 8:09:33 GMT
Not that it needs more confirmation once it's been Percyed. (It also looks like twitter have changed their url, so you can't embed tweets anymore) x.com/FrazFletcher/status/1791372471465128075Fraser (Fletcher) Gillan @frazfletcherViktor Johansson medical today, personal terms agreed and release clause activated. Stoke have their new Goalkeeper ✅✍️ #SCFC @teamtalk . He looks a bit mental. I like him already - for a keeper you need either ice cool (that beard is not cool) or batshit crazy (you can believe a bat is roosting in there somewhere).
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 17, 2024 7:12:18 GMT
We are coming up to a general election so it's time to dust off the Tory Election Playbook. Now the evils of a progressive education has been ticked off we can move on to dole scroungers and tougher sentencing for litter louts.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 17, 2024 7:02:25 GMT
Have you considered that it's Trump supporters who are suffering from TDS? It's logical that failure to accept Buyers Remorse leads to a particular psychosis similar to the object of their affection and inhabit a parallel universe where the Moon is made of Green Cheese Yeah considered that too. And defo something in it. But one thing really just keeps itching a scratch and it's that historically trump was a Democrat. And he was universally liked on the whole despite his oafishness. Strange how from nought to 100 he became the devil incarnate really. Doesn't add up to the neutral viewer like me... How do you take a neutral stance on a rapist? That isn't neutrality - its turning a blind eye to rape.
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on May 16, 2024 16:47:44 GMT
Personally I hate those clubs who think they are above the Championship and show no respect for either the competition or the opposition. The funny thing is they just look like self entitled idiots who don't get that they aren't going to get promoted until thwy stop pretending they are something they aren't and take the league seriously.
|
|