| The photo "snub" 09:31 - Aug 28 with 10753 views | ITFC_96 |
What I find so incredibly bewildering and disrespectful, is that the youngsters were told to come down for what is essentially a CHARITABLE photograph for the NHS, and then told they weren't in it.
How in any way could this be "tough love" or appropriate in any way? It is alienating and rude. Just incredible. |  | | |  |
| The photo on 14:59 - Aug 28 with 2634 views | SitfcB |
| The photo on 13:13 - Aug 28 by BrixtonBlue |
Ha, what?! Having a photo taken somehow prevents you getting fit now?!
Is it me or has everyone gone a bit doolally on here overnight?! |
 |  |
| |
| The photo "snub" on 15:10 - Aug 28 with 2608 views | noggin |
Maybe they voted tory and so was inappropriate to include them  |  |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 16:24 - Aug 28 with 2564 views | backwaywhen |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 09:42 - Aug 28 by ITFC_96 |
But they were invited down, and it's hardly a challenge to squeeze them in. It is clearly deliberate. |
I only hope they got the numbers wrong for Covid and there were too many people there to comply with current regs ! | | | |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 17:42 - Aug 28 with 2521 views | SitfcB |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 16:24 - Aug 28 by backwaywhen |
I only hope they got the numbers wrong for Covid and there were too many people there to comply with current regs ! |
They’ve all be in a dressing room together on numerous occasions and literally touch each other every day. | |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:10 - Aug 28 with 2503 views | Wickets |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 09:42 - Aug 28 by ITFC_96 |
But they were invited down, and it's hardly a challenge to squeeze them in. It is clearly deliberate. |
Phil's report says the Photo shoot was in the afternoon and the players were told earlier so that is not invited down is it ? |  | | |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:15 - Aug 28 with 2501 views | ITFC_96 |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:10 - Aug 28 by Wickets |
Phil's report says the Photo shoot was in the afternoon and the players were told earlier so that is not invited down is it ? |
Stuart Watson on Twitter says he believes everything in the article to be true. | | | |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:22 - Aug 28 with 2485 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:15 - Aug 28 by ITFC_96 |
Stuart Watson on Twitter says he believes everything in the article to be true. |
Phil Ham, he of this parish, has asserted that bit isn't true. |  |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:25 - Aug 28 with 2482 views | Wickets |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:15 - Aug 28 by ITFC_96 |
Stuart Watson on Twitter says he believes everything in the article to be true. |
Yes and i think you will find he says the 5 players were told on the day. What he does not say ,as some are claiming ,is that it was at the shoot . I think you will find that this is a complete non story . As i understand it the players were told at morning training the 24 needed for the Afternoon photo shoot . Wilson seems to be on the wind up to me ! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:26 - Aug 28 with 2481 views | SouperJim |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:15 - Aug 28 by ITFC_96 |
Stuart Watson on Twitter says he believes everything in the article to be true. |
That would be Stuart Watson of the EADT, the source of the incorrect version of events in the first place? It's almost as if they're deliberately trying to engineer controversy where there is none in order to drive clicks/newspaper sales. Because they definitely don't have a history of putting their own interests before the well-being of ITFC...
Read Watson's article carefully. He's trying as hard as he can to stir it. The quotes about the players, referencing what Paul Hurst said about the team photo 2 years ago etc.
What a scumbag. And a load of you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
As bignose would say, be on the inside pissing out. [Post edited 28 Aug 2020 18:40]
|  |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:57 - Aug 28 with 2443 views | LankHenners |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:26 - Aug 28 by SouperJim |
That would be Stuart Watson of the EADT, the source of the incorrect version of events in the first place? It's almost as if they're deliberately trying to engineer controversy where there is none in order to drive clicks/newspaper sales. Because they definitely don't have a history of putting their own interests before the well-being of ITFC...
Read Watson's article carefully. He's trying as hard as he can to stir it. The quotes about the players, referencing what Paul Hurst said about the team photo 2 years ago etc.
What a scumbag. And a load of you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
As bignose would say, be on the inside pissing out. [Post edited 28 Aug 2020 18:40]
|
Absolutely deranged reading of the situation. |  |
| |
| The photo on 19:04 - Aug 28 with 2422 views | jeera |
| The photo on 13:09 - Aug 28 by SitfcB |
The official 2020/21 squad photo plus individual photos.
Norwood shouldn’t have been in it as he should be focusing on getting fit IMO. [Post edited 28 Aug 2020 13:09]
|
They could have superimposed an image of him climbing through a window.
Full kit, John Terry style. |  |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:22 - Aug 28 with 2408 views | itfcjoe |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:26 - Aug 28 by SouperJim |
That would be Stuart Watson of the EADT, the source of the incorrect version of events in the first place? It's almost as if they're deliberately trying to engineer controversy where there is none in order to drive clicks/newspaper sales. Because they definitely don't have a history of putting their own interests before the well-being of ITFC...
Read Watson's article carefully. He's trying as hard as he can to stir it. The quotes about the players, referencing what Paul Hurst said about the team photo 2 years ago etc.
What a scumbag. And a load of you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
As bignose would say, be on the inside pissing out. [Post edited 28 Aug 2020 18:40]
|
If only you knew how much negative stuff the papers sit on in order to try and keep a good relationship with the club and help them |  |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:49 - Aug 28 with 2376 views | SouperJim |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:22 - Aug 28 by itfcjoe |
If only you knew how much negative stuff the papers sit on in order to try and keep a good relationship with the club and help them |
Until the manager is struggling, then they stick the boot in. Lambert being a walking disaster is clearly the more lucrative angle here, so that's what they're going with, regardless of merit.
Again, let's not forget how they behaved towards Magilton. | |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:57 - Aug 28 with 2365 views | ITFC_96 |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 18:26 - Aug 28 by SouperJim |
That would be Stuart Watson of the EADT, the source of the incorrect version of events in the first place? It's almost as if they're deliberately trying to engineer controversy where there is none in order to drive clicks/newspaper sales. Because they definitely don't have a history of putting their own interests before the well-being of ITFC...
Read Watson's article carefully. He's trying as hard as he can to stir it. The quotes about the players, referencing what Paul Hurst said about the team photo 2 years ago etc.
What a scumbag. And a load of you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.
As bignose would say, be on the inside pissing out. [Post edited 28 Aug 2020 18:40]
|
Stir it or not. The facts are that they have been left behind in favour of has-beens who have done nothing to warrant their place on the team. It's a massive slap in the face to them to be denied a bloody photo, just after signing new contracts with the club and not being allowed any chance to play by Lambert. Where are their individual photos?
What about the Woolfenden comments literally a couple days ago? You must be joking if you don't think this is a deliberate incident. Lambert is a disrespectful and terrible man manager. | | | |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:59 - Aug 28 with 2355 views | itfcjoe |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:49 - Aug 28 by SouperJim |
Until the manager is struggling, then they stick the boot in. Lambert being a walking disaster is clearly the more lucrative angle here, so that's what they're going with, regardless of merit.
Again, let's not forget how they behaved towards Magilton. |
Magilton was manager over a decade ago, it's about as relevant now as their conduct towards John Duncan in the late 80s | |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:32 - Aug 28 with 2311 views | haynes_toe1 |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:49 - Aug 28 by SouperJim |
Until the manager is struggling, then they stick the boot in. Lambert being a walking disaster is clearly the more lucrative angle here, so that's what they're going with, regardless of merit.
Again, let's not forget how they behaved towards Magilton. |
Its not like they need to make stuff up. Lamberts record speaks for itself. This story would be an almost non story if we were in the championship, Lambert had got us promoted and successfully developed a club and playing philosophy with youngsters progressing.
Instead its just yet another ridiculous failure and part of a very long list. | | | |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:32 - Aug 28 with 2310 views | SouperJim |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 19:59 - Aug 28 by itfcjoe |
Magilton was manager over a decade ago, it's about as relevant now as their conduct towards John Duncan in the late 80s |
Their conduct towards a manager 10 years ago is as relevant to their present behaviour as their conduct towards a manager 30 years ago? Really? Agree to disagree.
Opinions are great, we all have opinions, that's what a forum is for. But when people start reading between the lines, then presenting their assumptions as facts to fit their agenda, sensible debate goes out the window. This thread is littered with crap that people have just decided is true because they're understandably fed up with Lambert. | |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:38 - Aug 28 with 2302 views | SouperJim |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:32 - Aug 28 by haynes_toe1 |
Its not like they need to make stuff up. Lamberts record speaks for itself. This story would be an almost non story if we were in the championship, Lambert had got us promoted and successfully developed a club and playing philosophy with youngsters progressing.
Instead its just yet another ridiculous failure and part of a very long list. |
You've illustrated my point perfectly. If nobody would give a crap about this highly tenuous "snub" allegation if we were doing well, then they shouldn't give a crap about it now either.
The knives are out, so all balance goes out the window and nobody wants to let the facts get in the way of a good moan. It's pretty bloody childish. | |
| |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:45 - Aug 28 with 2290 views | haynes_toe1 |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:38 - Aug 28 by SouperJim |
You've illustrated my point perfectly. If nobody would give a crap about this highly tenuous "snub" allegation if we were doing well, then they shouldn't give a crap about it now either.
The knives are out, so all balance goes out the window and nobody wants to let the facts get in the way of a good moan. It's pretty bloody childish. |
Well not quite, you see. If a manager wins a couple matches it doesn't mean much. If they win 30 in a season then they're doing something right.
Equally, Lamberts made a whole host of errors and the insight and information from these is always going to become part of what judges him overall. Its a bad decision which on its own isn't disastrous but coupled with everything else explains why we finished midtable in the third tier of English football | | | |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 21:02 - Aug 28 with 2267 views | SouperJim |
| Not sure what your point is? (n/t) on 20:45 - Aug 28 by haynes_toe1 |
Well not quite, you see. If a manager wins a couple matches it doesn't mean much. If they win 30 in a season then they're doing something right.
Equally, Lamberts made a whole host of errors and the insight and information from these is always going to become part of what judges him overall. Its a bad decision which on its own isn't disastrous but coupled with everything else explains why we finished midtable in the third tier of English football |
I understand where you're coming from. I just typed out a whole essay in response and then I accidentally refreshed the page on my phone and lost it 
Basically we're descending into binary positions on Lambert, same as happened on here with every manager during the Evans era. It's tiresome and makes this place crappy. | |
| |
| The photo on 22:52 - Aug 28 with 2212 views | TheTrueBlue1878 |
| The photo "snub" on 12:21 - Aug 28 by itfcjoe |
From the story on the front page of the website:
"We understand the quintet were told by manager Paul Lambert at the training ground earlier in the day that they wouldn’t be included in the group shots or have individual photos taken."
So how are the individual photos explained away? Camerman didn't have enough film in his camera as only bought a 24 roll and not a 36 one.... |
I never said it wouldn’t be Lambert who picked the players, but I’m sure the number needed would come from the photographer. Anyway silly debate not needed.
Non starter story, just people looking to stir the pot without knowing full facts or reasoning. [Post edited 28 Aug 2020 22:53]
|  |
| |
| The photo "snub" on 12:29 - Aug 29 with 2132 views | JammyDodgerrr |
All involved today. A total non-story. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
