Most tinpot thing I ever heard. (tinpot thread)

[Pablosammy]

Ladies and gentlemen, i give to you Blackburn Rovers Shane Duffy:

View attachment 4194
View attachment 4195

Does that count in the top scorers table? From what I can see, that puts him joint top!

 

[Monkey Tennis]

Is that even possible?

It's probably happened before or since, but I can remember Michael Proctor scoring a hat-trick of own goals in the Premiership a few years back.

 

[GTFCfish]

Ladies and gentlemen, i give to you Blackburn Rovers Shane Duffy:

View attachment 4194
View attachment 4195

Apologies for quoting my own post but now the fuckers been sent off!

 

[Murphy]

Picked this up earlier from Twitter which I quite like.

 

[Pablosammy]

Picked this up earlier from Twitter which I quite like.
View attachment 4201

Stick it in a black kit, it can't be any worse than the human referees we've got in this league.

 

[Reginald Fodstain]

The National League equivalent of North Korea (Boreham Wood) won't allow us to show the highlights from last night's game (sore losers presumably), so we've recreated the winning goal:

 

[Raymondo316]

I thought Boreham allow people to record but you have to pay them 50 quid or something stupid like that. Remember hearing that Dover do the same as well..

 

[GTFCfish]

The National League equivalent of North Korea (Boreham Wood) won't allow us to show the highlights from last night's game (sore losers presumably), so we've recreated the winning goal:

Wow when did Boreham Wood get such a nice all seater ground?

 

[slaphead]

The National League equivalent of North Korea (Boreham Wood) won't allow us to show the highlights from last night's game (sore losers presumably), so we've recreated the winning goal:

Brilliant. Every club should do that, stick one up the tinpot fuckers.

 

[Jemfy]

The National League equivalent of North Korea (Boreham Wood) won't allow us to show the highlights from last night's game (sore losers presumably), so we've recreated the winning goal:

My favourite part is when the media guy is replaced for the goal part. It makes me wonder if he tried to do the finish a bunch of times and just kept screwing it up

 

[Reremnart]

My favourite part is when the media guy is replaced for the goal part. It makes me wonder if he tried to do the finish a bunch of times and just kept screwing it up

When it was suggested on Twitter that we do that for every goal we score he posted something about "you didn`t see how many takes we did just to do that one" . That would suggest you are 100% correct about him screwing it up.

 

[Steve_Wafc]

Apologies for quoting my own post but now the fuckers been sent off!

It's even more funny when you see that he received it by leathering the ball at a Cardiff player..

 

[appletablepenny]

I thought Boreham allow people to record but you have to pay them 50 quid or something stupid like that. Remember hearing that Dover do the same as well..

Yes, our Radio Robins commentary team didn't broadcast from there last season because of the fee Boreham Wood wanted to charge.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Just catching up on this thread...



...absolutely scandalous. THREE POUNDS FIFTY for something that uses less than half a penny's worth of electricity?! Bravo Mansfield, that's some markup you fleecing bastards. You know someone has sat round a table and posed the question "how much can we get away with charging them for this?"

£4 would be taking the piss IMO.

 

[Chris FGR]

The National League equivalent of North Korea (Boreham Wood) won't allow us to show the highlights from last night's game (sore losers presumably), so we've recreated the winning goal:

Were the nets folded up like that at B Wood then?

Crowd looks realistic though.

 

[Shotsfan1993]

I thought Boreham allow people to record but you have to pay them 50 quid or something stupid like that. Remember hearing that Dover do the same as well..

http://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/wood-stand-by-the-decision/

And based on the above they seem to think it is perfectly reasonable. This is the kind of thing that makes me feel annoyed that we gifted them 3 points at the end of last season to help them stay up!

 

[JJ1532]

I'd have more sympathy if the person who wrote that statement had a decent grasp of the English language. The grammar in that article is shocking.

 

[Jemfy]

http://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/wood-stand-by-the-decision/

And based on the above they seem to think it is perfectly reasonable. This is the kind of thing that makes me feel annoyed that we gifted them 3 points at the end of last season to help them stay up!

Terrible statement, which belongs on this thread, but I can see their point. Why should Chester be able to charge for commentary for the game without the home team getting a fair fee? Especially when free commentary is an option.

 

[Shotsfan1993]

Terrible statement, which belongs on this thread, but I can see their point. Why should Chester be able to charge for commentary for the game without the home team getting a fair fee? Especially when free commentary is an option.

But it's not just the fact that they are charging Chester. As Slaphead said previously, they did the same to us last season when we asked for the video so we could upload highlights (which are on youtube and free to everyone), so we politely refused.

 

[shoddycollins]

Are we suggesting Boreham Wood are a fairly good example of a tinpot outfit? That's like suggesting Napoleon Bonaparte was a fairly good example of a 19th century French dictator.

I've probably posted this on this thread already, but I'll just leave this here

http://www.borehamwoodfootballclub.co.uk/boreham-wood-fc-replies-to-laughable-accusation/

 

[Jemfy]

But it's not just the fact that they are charging Chester. As Slaphead said previously, they did the same to us last season when we asked for the video so we could upload highlights (which are on youtube and free to everyone), so we politely refused.

That's an inconsistency, and unfair. But viewing this incident as a stand alone it's a reasonable stance for this one thing. Were Tranmere refused highlights for a paid-for service, or are those highlights normally free to view?

 

[Bluandwite]

What’s annoyed me more than anything about this whole episode is the fact is all we’ve done as a fan owned club is explain to our fanbase why we aren’t covering the game! Our fans who subscribe to Blues Player would expect a commentary tomorrow and we’ve simply put out a statement as to why there won’t be a service for the game. The fact that it’s a subscription service and the debate of whether we should pay or not is completely irrelevant, that’s for our own fans to debate. It’s not our fault that Boreham Wood’s policies that we’ve refused and explained to our supporters subsequently show them in a bad light to the general public.

Our statement was informative to our own supporters, Boreham Wood’s response is a bitter attack on our club out of spite. They know what they do isn’t well received and are unhappy we’ve made a bit of a point of it and are attempting to shift the attention back on us.

In absolute fairness, once you get past the grammatical errors in their statement, you can sort of see the point they are making. However, I think the point is they are breaking a bit of an unwritten rule where I think it’s viewed as common courtesy to allow the opposition to provide free coverage, regardless of what happens afterwards. But it’s besides the point, due to the reasons above.

In my opinion Boreham Wood are a disgrace. I haven’t forgotten them raising their prices for us last season, charging us more than home fans and fans of other fans clubs that will visit throughout the season. I’ll be there tomorrow and will be telling them exactly what I think of their shambolic club.

 

[Reginald Fodstain]

That's an inconsistency, and unfair. But viewing this incident as a stand alone it's a reasonable stance for this one thing. Were Tranmere refused highlights for a paid-for service, or are those highlights normally free to view?

The goals are always free on Youtube. You can subscribe with a fee for much longer highlights (20 minutes worth).

 

[Jemfy]

The goals are always free on Youtube. You can subscribe with a fee for much longer highlights (20 minutes worth).

Then their stance makes a little sense. I guess it remains to be seen if other away sides will get highlights this season when their only highlights services are free - though I doubt we'll ever know if clubs paid.

 

[Jemfy]

What’s annoyed me more than anything about his whole episode is the fact is all we’ve done as a fan owned own club is explain to our fanbase why we aren’t covering the game! Our fans who subscribe to Blues Player would expect a commentary tomorrow and we’ve simply put out statement as to why there won’t be a service for the game. The fact that it’s a subscription service and the debate of whether we should pay or not is completely irrelevant, that’s for our own fans to debate. It’s not our fault that Boreham Wood’s policies that we’ve refused and explained to our supporters subsequently show them in a bad light to the general public.

Our statement was informative to our own supporters, Boreham Wood’s response is a bitter attack on our club out of spite. They know what they do isn’t well received and are unhappy we’ve made a bit of a point of it and are attempting to shift the attention back on us.

In absolute fairness, once you get past the grammatical errors in their statement, you can sort of see the point they are making. However, I think the point is they are breaking a bit of an unwritten rule where I think it’s viewed as common courtesy to allow the opposition to provide free coverage, regardless of what happens afterwards. But it’s besides the point, due to the reasons above.

In my opinion Boreham Wood are a disgrace. I haven’t forgotten them raising their prices for us last season, charging us more than home fans and fans of other fans clubs that will visit throughout the season. I’ll be there tomorrow and will be telling them exactly what I think of their shambolic club.

I'm not defending Boreham Wood too much, but I think it's unfair to call them a disgrace due to asking for a fee for the coverage. Perhaps it's bad etiquette, but nothing more than that. Not with the clarification that it's due to you making money off of it. You're essentially paying to rent the equipment/broadcasting space.

As much as the intention of the Chester statement is to inform Chester fans, it doesn't work only like that. A statement that refers to another club will always colour people's opinions about that club. That's what Boreham Wood are responding to.

As I understand it from the statement they were happy to provide you free coverage, except for the fact you were charging for such coverage - they say if you're making money off of one of their home games they want a piece of the pie, and this seems reasonable from a logical standpoint.

For the record, I don't think Chester have done anything wrong. They only thing they could have done differently is to make the statement through email to service subscribers. Well within your rights to refuse to pay either as a matter of principle or a decision that there was no value in it (even if such was the case and was not said). The wording, while a lot more professional, was a little bit interesting - I wonder if BWFC would have responded if Chester had not called it a matter of principle, and just stated that due to being charged they were not covering it.

 

[Aberstone]

I can see where Boreham Wood are coming from but their credibility goes right out the window as they refused to allow one of our supporters to film highlights on his phone two years ago (free service). Instead, they wanted Wealdstone supporters to pay the extortionate £4 for highlights.

Mugs.

 

[Pablosammy]

I just hope teams charge BW when they visit other grounds. I can understand Chester's point if they had planned to offer the same facilities for free on the return leg.

 

[Blue Lion]

I'm not defending Boreham Wood too much, but I think it's unfair to call them a disgrace due to asking for a fee for the coverage. Perhaps it's bad etiquette, but nothing more than that. Not with the clarification that it's due to you making money off of it. You're essentially paying to rent the equipment/broadcasting space.

As much as the intention of the Chester statement is to inform Chester fans, it doesn't work only like that. A statement that refers to another club will always colour people's opinions about that club. That's what Boreham Wood are responding to.

As I understand it from the statement they were happy to provide you free coverage, except for the fact you were charging for such coverage - they say if you're making money off of one of their home games they want a piece of the pie, and this seems reasonable from a logical standpoint.

For the record, I don't think Chester have done anything wrong. They only thing they could have done differently is to make the statement through email to service subscribers. Well within your rights to refuse to pay either as a matter of principle or a decision that there was no value in it (even if such was the case and was not said). The wording, while a lot more professional, was a little bit interesting - I wonder if BWFC would have responded if Chester had not called it a matter of principle, and just stated that due to being charged they were not covering it.

One issue I have with this is that Boreham Wood themselves use a subscription/fee based highlights service for their own supporters so it seems very hypocritical for them to be using this as a reason to be charging other clubs to do the same thing. Anyway, the fact that BT release the goals from weekend games for free on Youtube kind of solves the fact that Boreham Wood don't allow highlights to be shown without a charge.

The real problem is with them not allowing away commentary to broadcast from their ground. I don't go along with the argument that Boreham Wood provide the all the entertainment (has the writer ever seen them play??), it's not as if the away side don't have to make other expenses, travel costs for instance, so surely providing some space for them inside the ground is just a common use of good manners. As far as I know Boreham Wood don't provide their own commentary unless BBC 3 Counties does it for them and it's very unreasonable to expect all supporters of away clubs to visit the home club in order to see/hear the game.

 

[shoddycollins]

One issue I have with this is that Boreham Wood themselves use a subscription/fee based highlights service for their own supporters so it seems very hypocritical for them to be using this as a reason to be charging other clubs to do the same thing. Anyway, the fact that BT release the goals from weekend games for free on Youtube kind of solves the fact that Boreham Wood don't allow highlights to be shown without a charge.

The real problem is with them not allowing away commentary to broadcast from their ground. I don't go along with the argument that Boreham Wood provide the all the entertainment (has the writer ever seen them play??), it's not as if the away side don't have to make other expenses, travel costs for instance, so surely providing some space for them inside the ground is just a common use of good manners. As far as I know Boreham Wood don't provide their own commentary unless BBC 3 Counties does it for them and it's very unreasonable to expect all supporters of away clubs to visit the home club in order to see/hear the game.

A couple of seasons ago when we had them in the FA Cup 1st round at their place it was livestreamed by a Russian TV channel. I don't know what sort of arrangement went on there, are BHW refusing to allow commentary so they can sell the TV rights?

 

[Harrier94]

One issue I have with this is that Boreham Wood themselves use a subscription/fee based highlights service for their own supporters so it seems very hypocritical for them to be using this as a reason to be charging other clubs to do the same thing. Anyway, the fact that BT release the goals from weekend games for free on Youtube kind of solves the fact that Boreham Wood don't allow highlights to be shown without a charge.

The real problem is with them not allowing away commentary to broadcast from their ground. I don't go along with the argument that Boreham Wood provide the all the entertainment (has the writer ever seen them play??), it's not as if the away side don't have to make other expenses, travel costs for instance, so surely providing some space for them inside the ground is just a common use of good manners. As far as I know Boreham Wood don't provide their own commentary unless BBC 3 Counties does it for them and it's very unreasonable to expect all supporters of away clubs to visit the home club in order to see/hear the game.

I think according to an agreement with the BBC they have to allow any BBC radio station to broadcast.