snakehips

"Simply because we stood our ground..." As usual, there's more to this than appears. Is is just me, or do folk banged up always protest they've done nowt wrong, yet upon closer inspection they have gone waaaaay over the top in their 'attitude' towards the polis? No doubt plod has upset them, but I bet he and his friend haven't exactly been angelic in their dealings with the policemen's 'inquiries'.

I hear Wenger's after Sherla in the summer. Then again, I may just be taking the piss.

Put the fucking guitar down the next time you step on the scales - you'll be fine then.

I think that West Ham do actually try and play some good football and it does show at times. Although I don't think as a group they're anything spectacular. Man City have an unlimited pot of money and have players like Robinho so at times do play with that finesse. Whereas Everton are up there due to a continuation of good work that Moyes has put in over the years, nothing spectacular but a very solid, consistent unit, who at times can actually play good football. Something that Allardyce is oppose to. When W.Ham came to St James' I was staggered at how ordinary they were. The fact we couldn't beat them told me a hell of a lot about my own team that day. Canny side at home I'd say mind. Plus, they were having an ordinary run of form when we played them, weren't they? I think they went on a canny run after playing us. I could be wrong though. Still a fucking bland team imo.

It would be unbearable with us and Boro in the Championship and the Mackems in the Premiership!!! Echoes of the 90/91 season. The Hull game at the end of that season was a classic event though. Neither us nor them had anything to play for but if the Mackems lost at Man City, they were coming back down again. Bizarre watching the whole Gallowgate end erupt when the ball was nowhere near the goalmouth - Hull to their credit joined in and celebrate the Sunderland goals when they scored Says everything about the mackems when even the 'ully gullys take the piss out of them.

I think that West Ham do actually try and play some good football and it does show at times. Although I don't think as a group they're anything spectacular. Man City have an unlimited pot of money and have players like Robinho so at times do play with that finesse. Whereas Everton are up there due to a continuation of good work that Moyes has put in over the years, nothing spectacular but a very solid, consistent unit, who at times can actually play good football. Something that Allardyce is oppose to. When W.Ham came to St James' I was staggered at how ordinary they were. The fact we couldn't beat them told me a hell of a lot about my own team that day.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax? The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary. I do agree with what you say to an extent there, but there's more to the process than that I suppose. I haven't studied what he is on about either but I think the piece is interesting, if a bit OTT. But to expand on what you say, the democratic process perhaps isn't as democractic as it seems. You have a government with a big majority (especially in the first two terms in this case) despite them only getting 40-odd % of the vote and probably (at a guess) a 40-odd % turnout. This makes the exectutive - i.e. the cabinet powerful enough to ride rough-shod over any rebellion and you've then got the whip which basically means vote as we say or your political career is effectively over (or at least it can mean that). I do think any chipping away at liberties is exactly that, gradually chipping away. I'm not so much really worried as concerned about the things that have been brought in and that the government is trying to bring in in the name of protecting us in the so-called 'war against terror' and so on. I may be completely wrong, but I honestly believe that if New Labour came up with something so bad and so outrageously wrong, that the back benchers would not kow tow, no matter how much of a whip the executive put on it. I really believe that to be the case.

Would we be in the position we are in today, if he had still been manager? I would say no. I would say we would be toward the top six. Why? Because look at the teams there at the moment; Everton, Wistam, Man City. These three are, by and large, NOTHING sides. There seems virtually no finesse in them at all, yet they are near the top of the table. If Allardyce was still here, I'm guessing we would be another of these nothing sides so there would be no reason to suggest we wouldn't be up there with them. Did I like Allardyce's football? Not a bit. I was glad he got the push. I'm greedy, me. I want us challenging whilst playing attractive football not mind-numbing dirge that the three teams mentioned play. That's just me though. Thing is, we can speculate all we want but we will never know how good or bad he would have been at Newcastle.

Stumbled across this. To add some intrigue to its content, this was (supposedly) printed in the Times and put on their website but subsequently pulled from it shortly afterwards. Anyone heard about this or know if it's an internet hoax? The crux of his argument seems to be the bit above. Basically what he's saying is that he doesn't like the above legislation and that anyone who does is aleep (or, in other words, stupid). Now I, along with most folk in UK, haven't studied the legislation he mentions so we can't really tell what it entails. He obviously has studied it, and is telling us it's crap. However, no matter how much he thinks it is crap (and he could well be right for all I know) the legislation has passed through parliament, which means plenty of folk have studied the details and a majority of them have seen fit to pass it, regardless of what Mr B thinks to the contrary.

Why do wimin persist in exaggerate this givin' birth lark? Difficult? Pah! Hard? Pah! Piece of piss, man.

Probably Gonzalez, as he is about the only one able not to take any responsibility for the shite we now find ourselve in

Editted If you'd used multi colours (like Meenzer's the other day) you would have really made your point. However, calling me 'young Snakey' has earned you numerous brownie points that will stand you in good stead for any misdemeanours you may inadvertantly make.

I recall reading an assessment of Huddlestone, but I can't for the life of me remember if it was by a team mate or a football pundit. Anyhoo, the assessment nearly made me fall of my seat when he was reported to be as good as (no word of a lie here) Franz fucking Beckenbauer (sp)!!!! The lad does look okay, the times I've seen him, but he just looks the wrong shape iyam. Sounds daft, but he just looks too bulky to be mobile enough at the very top. Then again, he wouldn't be at the very top if he did come here!

Emotions are running a tad high, methinks. He's not all that bad lads.

If I received such a letter, I would print a copy; take it to the next home game; make a paper aeroplane and fly it. Woohoooo what a pretty sight that would make. Some entertainment at the match - now there's a novelty.

7 pages and that's one of the things you comment on. You, you, dabbler, you

Sorry, but there's only one proper answer for such a question. Cassius Marcellus Clay. Football-wise, it is probably Ferguson, but for Paisley to take the established Liverpool team which Shankly had started, and build it up and evolve it continuously was no mean feat.

I find myself feeling almost apathetic now. I shouldn't feel this way - I should be nervous as hell. I know that my emotions will go into overdrive once the game has finished, but I just can't get myself worked up about it at all atm. Maybe I'm turning plastic?

Saw him the other day. Hasn't missed many dinners. It happens to a lot of athletes like me and John H. It's called Relaxed Muscle Syndrome. That is all.

Tell ya who I do like as a pundit and that's John Hartson. Seen him a couple of times on Sentata, and heard him on the radio as well. He was once doing the punditry during an Old Firm game and the guy was as unbiased as owt, as well as making some good points. On football in general, he sounded pretty good when I heard him on the radio. What was the name of the lad he booted during training at Wist'am ?? Fucked if I can remember.

I'm not concerned by it at all tbh. More out of context quotes iyam. And which player in their right mind would not be admiring Arsenal, if they currently play for this crap club?

Being sober, makes me perform much better for the laydees anarl And, if they're pissed and I'm sober, there's far more chance of me getting to knob them anyway

I dont drink Why? Cos ive got no interest in it anymore. the idea of spunking £30-£60 on a single night out and then a day recovering just doesnt appeal. at one time getting completely spackered was very important to me but i kinda got out of the habit of going out every other day and started spending my money on other things (like buying 7 copies of the same film on dvd ). You used to drink, so that doesn't count. You can be trusted. Nearly always when I come across someone who doesn't drink, some light delving soon reveals you have a nutter on your hands. That last one probably applies to me I am attempting to drop drinking from my life. I have come to realise that I don't need to drink to enjoy myself. There is the theory that a person can just have one, but I can say in all honesty that one drink has always had an effect on me. I could go on, but I don't want to bore you all (again ), suffice it to say that I feel 100% happier - both physically and mentally - if I can spend an evening out without drinking. The FACT! is that I can still have a good laugh and a joke without drinking.

It wasn't until I got half way through the thread that I realised it was from last year. I was totally unprepared for the final post, and was expecting some lovely conclusion at the end. It was quite sad to read your last message (last post sounded so, so wrong). I trust all will get better soon. Up and at 'em, Isegrim

He's aaalreet, but I think he tries a bit too hard and too enthusiastic at times. When he stops and considers what he's going to say, he comes across as a fairly knowledgable chap imo.