DaveyDenoon
-
Posts
1,274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by DaveyDenoon
-
-
31 minutes ago, wanderer said:
Norwegian FA now saying there is a chance the Serbia game will have to be postponed also.
If the Norway Serbia game is off then there’s no point playing ours. Better to postpone it than to play it in an empty ground.
-
Great advice from Duncan about getting into the stadium early. Two years ago we queued for a good 45 minutes to get in and almost missed the anthems. Been to a few games at the Millennium Stadium since and there has always been healthy queues.
My advice would be to start heading to the stadium at least an hour before ko time at the absolute minimum and that’s assuming you’re in a city centre boozer relatively near the stadium. I’ll be making my way there a good 90 minutes beforehand and since you can get a pint inside anyway there’s no reason to leave it much later.
Also try and avoid taking any bags as that will slow you down and rucksacks are a no-no. Ladies’ handbags are about your limit!
-
11 minutes ago, Rolling hIlls said:
I actually do feel kinda sorry for you guys on here. But you must have known that Rangers would return to where we belong. You milked it when we were unfairly relegated and rightly so. But you must have known surely. We are all neil lennon 😀
You weren’t unfairly relegated. You weren't even relegated. You went bust, ceased to exist, had to reform and start again and do so, rightly, from the bottom.
But yes we all knew you’d be back one day. Except, it seems, the Celtic board which has failed miserably to prepare for it.
-
Absolutely pathetic again from Celtic against Rangers. Lennon hasn’t a clue. Celtic have far superior players but yet again he cannot get them to perform against a little more than decent, organised and determined side.
I said it after the cup final and I will say it again - the board appointing Lennon on the cheap will hand the title to Rangers.
We need to get rid of him now and get in a tactically aware manager who can get the best out of the quality we have. Lennon clearly cannot and Rangers will win the title if he remains.
-
13 minutes ago, Farcity said:
But in this case the reporter has seen the incident and he is, frankly, wrong. There was not excessive force by any stretch if the imagination. So calling him a cock is valid in this case.
WCTA appeal - Upheld.
If that is the case then you can call him a cock for being wrong about the amount of speed and force. But to suggest speed and force are irrelevant is nuts.
-
3 minutes ago, WCTA said:
The ball was fairly won. The ref has reached for the red straight away due to the reaction of a baying crowd.
Possibly and as long as the tackle was made and the ball won without using excessive force then it would be wrong to send him off. If however excessive force was used then whether he wins the ball or not is irrelevant and the red would be correct.
I haven’t yet seen it so cannot comment on this actual challenge. But the reporter would not be wrong to refer to speed and force (assuming he believes they were excessive) yet you seem to suggest that these factors aren’t relevant. They very much are.
-
23 minutes ago, Farcity said:
Are you seriously suggesting there was excessive force in that challenge?
No I’m not, as I haven’t yet seen it.
I am making the point that it is unfair to call a reporter a cock simply because he referred to the speed and force of the challenge and that to suggest these factors are irrelevant is plainly incorrect.
I'm talking generically and saying that speed and force are very much relevant.
-
22 minutes ago, WCTA said:
The game’s fucked if you think the ball should be cleared only if it is done slowly and softly.
That’s not what I said
-
37 minutes ago, WCTA said:
I’m saying that however fast or hard a ball has been cleared has no impact at all.
You said the reporter stating that the speed and force probably made it a red was a cock for saying so.
I am saying that’s nonsense as speed and force are clearly relevant - whether you make contact with the ball or not.
Now you are saying force and speed in a challenge is irrelevant if the ball is cleared?
With all due respect, and I’m sure you’re a decent bloke and all, you are categorically wrong.
-
3 minutes ago, WCTA said:
Speed and force together on the ball is not illegal at all though.
You are seriously suggesting that when assessing a challenge, and particularly whether or not a red is merited, neither speed nor force carry any degree of relevance whatsoever and should be wholly ignored?
-
6 minutes ago, WCTA said:
Adding force to it does not make it an illegal challenge.
Excessive force is a red card under the laws. Combine force with speed and you could well be looking at a red.
My point is you said speed doesn’t make it a red and you’re right. But speed and force may well do. So the reporter isn’t necessarily a cock for his comments.
-
25 minutes ago, WCTA said:
Since when did the speed of a tackle become a bad thing in football? 💁♂️
What a cock coming away with that. 🙄
I read “speed and force”, from which you conveniently left “force” out to suit your agenda.
Now I haven’t seen the challenge so I can’t comment on whether it should be a red or not but you’re not doing your argument any favours by missing out key information.
-
On 12/17/2019 at 4:31 PM, Jim Beem said:
Punters calling a booking a ‘caution’ 🙈
That’s what it is! In official terms anyway...
-
9 hours ago, RightPeg said:
Yeah that was my point to the original post about it. "They'll be paying the SFA." "Obviously the size of that team's fan base and level of TV coverage dictates how much it costs a company to get their name on the shirt."
I'm on your side.
Yeah I quoted the wrong post 😂😂🤦♂️
-
On 12/11/2019 at 8:47 AM, RightPeg said:
They'll be paying the SFA. I assume by "we" you mean the fans, if that's the case then you surely think all football tops bought by supporters are free advertising for that company. Obviously the size of that team's fan base and level of TV coverage dictates how much it costs a company to get their name on the shirt.
Is it “free advertising” though? You might not be getting paid, but your club is. Isn’t that kinda the point? The sponsor pays the club big bucks (according to level of exposure which would include shirt sales not just the players wearing them in games, on TV, etc and the fact that you might wear it out and about) in exchange for that exposure?
-
23 hours ago, Jim Beem said:
And anyway, VAR wont help Morelos miss sitter after sitter. Stupid man.
VAR would have helped out with a couple of them - he'd not have been on the pitch to miss them!
-
21 hours ago, wanderer said:
Unfortunately the tournament as a whole is now far to big for us to host, and that includes co-hosting it with the Irish and Welsh (with the tournament expansion for 2016, I suspect UEFA's plans were for Spain, Italy, Germany, France and England to rotate it between themselves, with the occasional Dutch-Belgium co-host and maybe a trip to Russia once they had the World Cup out the way)
You’re right, but I was referring to us not bidding again for 2012 when nobody seemed to really want to host it.
We’d certainly struggle now I agree. So sadly our opportunity has gone for good.
-
1 hour ago, wanderer said:
Was it not a case that nobody wanted it? Seem to recall in the late 00's the big vision was Turkey to get it on the back of a Olympic's bid which never happened, and the likes of Germany, Italy and Spain showing no interest, with the only "serious" bid coming from Azerbaijan.
Deadline for bids came and went, then the next thing UEFA said that it would be held across Europe as a whole (think it was down to getting their fingers burnt a tad with Euro 2012 with nations being overly keen to host, but not got the infrastructure).
Even more ridiculous that we didn’t try again after the failed 2008 bid.
Honestly, as a nation we have zero balls or confidence about us.
-
18 minutes ago, dohadeer said:
Convenient way to avoid answering any of the points raised.
Mainly your ‘astronomical odds’ claim which you didn’t check for 15 years.
Swearing and having a go at me doesn’t defend you from the accusations of making completely incorrect claims that you didn’t bother to fact check.
You just come across as an arrogant, condescending, pedantic arsehole. Not just on this thread either.
I’ll express my view regardless of your so-called anal self-appointed “fact-checking”.
Life is about more than facts. Opinions are valid too and having one doesn’t make me a “conspiracy theorist” or such like.
Enjoy your sterile, boring, pedantic fact-based existence. Have fun spending hours trawling through history to try and prove you’re right every time. Nobody cares.
-
21 hours ago, dohadeer said:
I think that there are two main reasons why it IS 'hardcore' paranoia on your part.
Firstly, I don't say this to be rude or insulting, but the evidence has shown that you don't know what you're talking about. You claimed the odds of something happening were 'astronomically' high, when in fact it was a 23% chance. Even without doing the calculation, it looked fairly obvious that the odds weren't astronomical. The claim of astronomical odds seemed so bizarre, that I went and checked it as soon as I read it.
Secondly, you have chosen to hold on to a belief for over 15 years, still grumbling about it to this day, and yet at no point in that time did you take the 30 seconds to do the calculation, or ask someone to do the calculation for you. If I had such a belief as that, the very first thing that I'd do was check the calculation in question, which I did straight away as soon as I read it. You preferred to throw the word 'astronomical' around, to try and give weight to your claim, rather than checking the most obvious bit of evidence which was right at your fingertips!
There is so much shit in this post it’s hardly worth responding.
But if you truly don’t want to be rude or insulting then don't be rude or insulting, stop acting like a dick (in this and other threads) and stop talking shit.
Bye.
-
4 hours ago, Toepoke said:
Versus Czechoslovakia for the 1962 World Cup, played at a neutral venue, Brussels.
We must be one of the few long established international teams to never feature in a penalty shoot out?!
Cheers
Yeah quite a long time ago indeed and a bit before my time. It’s time we put that situation right then eh?
-
2 hours ago, dohadeer said:
An event taking place that had a 23% chance of occurring, definitely doesn’t fall into the ‘highly suspicious’ category.
I’d put it in the ‘not even worth a mention’ category.
It’s confirmation bias on your part. You’d convinced yourself that the draw would be fixed, so when the outcome happened that UEFA preferred, you assume it had to be a fix. You’re conveniently ignoring the 23% chance of that event happening legitimately. Where does that scenario fit into your story?
Where does that sort of paranoia stop? If an event which had a 49% chance of happening occurs, is that also an indication of foul play, because it was more likely that it didn’t happen? You’re going down the route of ‘Mr 0.002%’ on another thread. You seem to assume 49.9% equates to 0%, because the odds are against that event happening.
I don’t think that you should be making slanderous accusations like these, unless you have actual evidence. The English media have a weird obsession with corruption involving FIFA/UEFA/anyone they can blame failures on. I’m fairly confident if the sort of thing was going on that you suggest, that the English media would have investigated and exposed it a long, long time ago.
Jesus it’s not exactly hardcore paranoia and I’m well aware of the difference between 0% and 49.9%.
I'm merely suggesting it’s slightly suspicious or worthy of question that UEFA got the outcome they wanted despite of being a less that 1 in 4 chance. Of course it is possible that the draw was conducted absolutely above board and the 23% chance just happened to come about. I also suggested we’d never really know. But as someone who does not like coincidences there will always be a valid question mark over it.
Despite some English paranoia it’s pretty clear FIFA is corrupt. Who says UEFA can’t be too? Just because nothing has been exposed doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I’m certainly open to the possibility. Again, I’m not saying it was 100% definitely a fix, I am saying it is suspicious and there is a question mark. Plenty suspicious people have been found innocent. Some though, guilty. Who knows 🤷♂️
I also made it clear that I don’t think anyone but Scotland is to blame for Scotland not qualifying in over 22 years. If I was guilty of gross paranoia then I’m sure I’d be blaming UEFA/FIFA/The Man In The Moon or whatever.
The 0.02% guy is plainly just trolling - if not then he needs help. Even though our chances have diminished after the draw if he’s offering 50,000-1 I’ll have some of it.
-
CD
in TA specific
1 hour ago, AndyDD said:The next logical step for Davy Provan, surely? 😜
If it saves him from commentating on either of the games then he can go for it 😂😂
-
4 hours ago, Orraloon said:
We have been knocked out in extra time in a play off, but never had a penalty shoot out.
Can’t remember that? Must’ve been a long long time ago?
Hotel room for Israel Game
in Scotland Home Games
Posted
I wouldn’t hold your breath on this one bud