Irrelevant Nick KP

StoneCold, My point is that if we won the Carling Cup, I'd be so happy that there would be barely any room for thoughts about Sunderland. Man U win the league, and all they can say is '19' this and 'more than Liverpool' this. But that's not surprising, given the emotional vacuum they clearly have about winning the league.

Alex, the following information requires a brain larger than a peanut. StoneCold compared 3 points for us, to Man United winning the league. I merely showed him how that backed up my argument. The 5-1 win was 3 points, plus an orgasmic moment of revenge for Sunderland's attitude when we were relegated, as well as the traditional rivalry we have with Sunderland. Man United winning the league was good because it was 'against' Liverpool, in a sense. But if you strip away that particular aspect, then it was no better than 3 points for us. That is the reason why Man U fans can't mention the title without also mentioning the number 19. Now try to digest it properly, not just read it. It gets boring with you constantly misunderstanding.

Alex, you will know what you're talking about if you bother to read the whole of our conversation, not just the last 2 comments.

StoneCold you just proved my point. Winning the league to Man U is like 3 points to us.

Don't fucking shout at me, kiddah. In my language, shouting is done in block capitals. Large print is used to talk calmly, but through a megaphone. FUCK OFF Have a clementine :icon_lol:

Don't fucking shout at me, kiddah. In my language, shouting is done in block capitals. Large print is used to talk calmly, but through a megaphone.

Have an olive.

OzToon, you're right, the happiness league is a little more complex, and you by and large have to divide the points by net expenditure on players. And as you say, the happiness league is the most important, and also the most interesting. Mind you that's not very hard, when you think what we're comparing it with; Man U or Chelsea again? (yawn)

Points-per-match is very important. In fact, and you can astonish a lot of complete idiots with this one, the team that wins the league is the team with the most points-per-match.

I don't know why you would assume Hodgson would smash it. Liverpool were on their way towards the bottom when he was sacked. If you go by points-per-match, then Hodgson (as WBA manager) is WELL into the top-half of ALL managers, regardless of nationality. If Newcastle win, then Hughton is not in the equation, since Pardew has got more points per match. But if Newcastle lose, then Hughton will edge ahead. (either way, it's too close to draw a conclusion about who is best, Pardew or Hughton). Lastly, and this is crucial. I would not count a performance of only 3-4 matches. But Hodgson and Pardew have both had famr more matches than that at their current clubs. Indeed, Pardew has had most of Newcastle's matches, this season.

I count Hughton as Irish. That's his football nationality. (plus, if Pardew wins vs WBA, he'll have more points per match) If he loses, then Hughton will win my little battle between Hughton and Pardew on another thread. And I'd be only to happy to take Hodgson's Liverpool performance into account, but I'm not sure how to do it mathematically. Any suggestions? If not, then put a sock in it. As for Di Matteo, they were 17th, when he was sacked, so he can't possibly hope for 2nd place no matter how you look at it.

Among English managers, Harry Redknapp will finish top, in the Premiership. If Newcastle beat West Brom, Alan Pardew will be 2nd. If Newcastle don't beat West Brom, Roy Hodgson will be 2nd.

Stephen, exacttly. Doing better than our rivals is nice, but the main thing is that we do as well as possible, ourselves. Man United have just won the most important trophy in the land, and yet all we can hear is '19' and 'we've passed Liverpool'. Man U fans get so little pleasure from winning the league, that this '19' and 'passing Liverpool' malarkey is useful to spice it up. What are they going to be shouting next time they win the league? There's nothing, so they'll just have to go through the motions of cheering, while in reality they can't really be arsed. Lastly, have you met any Man U fans that seem really happy about winning the league?

Do you use hair gel? :icon_lol: :icon_lol: :icon_lol:

Alex, Yes, you've misread me. I do NOT want to go back to any olden days, mythical or not. As far as I'm concerned, we have a level playing field. It's level, in that no matter who you support, at the end of the season there's a small chance you'll be delighted, there's a small chance you'll be heart-broken, but you'll probably be somewhere in the boring but safe middle. It's the same if you support Chelsea, it's the same if you support Fulham. So, no, I don't feel the need to go back to any olden days. StoneColdStephen, Birmingham fans will indeed be bitterly disappointed if they get relegated. Man U fans are so bored with winning the league, that they actually started thinking about overtaking Liverpool's number of titles as early as a few years back, just to give at least ONE of the title wins a renewed novelty. What's more, the season will be a let-down if they lose the CL final,

I've had more massive shits. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I think it's a massive match for us. We have a chance to finish in the top 10. When other clubs are spending stupid amounts of money, and we refuse to follow that stupid trend, then 10th becomes a very honorable position.

I don't mind Swansea. But I don't want Peter Ridsdale in the Prem. So go Reading!!!

Ant, I didn't start it. I think it's really pathetic to correct people's language outside the classroom. But when someone does it, and they are wrong, I will answer them back. acrossthepond 'when' is a subordinating conjunction. http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'. A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase, which isn't a clause. Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police. The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple). You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb. Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, if it starts with, for example, 'when'.

acrossthepond 'when' is a subordinating conjunction. http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'. A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase, which isn't a clause. Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police. The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple). You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb. Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, unless it contains a finite verb.

acrossthepond 'when' is a subordinating conjunction. http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subordinateclause.htm Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'. A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase, which isn't a clause. Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police. The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple). You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb. Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, unless it contains a finite verb.

ChezGiven, I am the last person that would start to write about language on a football thread, but you'll notice that I was responding to someone else. (you probably did notice, but only decieded to say something after I had posted about it, you rogue )

acrsoothepond a clause that starts with 'when' is a sub-ordinate clause. (How could a clause that starts with 'when' possibly be on its own, you nugget?) Subordinate clauses are joined by subordinate conjunctions like 'when' for example. Independent clauses (or main clauses, which I have always called them) will be joined by 'and', 'but' or 'or'. A subordinate clause (which starts with 'when') DOES contain a finite verb, and that might be why you mistook it for an independent clause). There is also another category, namely the phrase which isn't a clause. Forexample, Seeing his car gone, John called the police. The above sentence has a main clause at the end, but the underlined part doesn't qualify as a clause at all (not even as a subordinate clause). It's a phrase, since it doesn't contain a finite verb (a verb in present simple, or past simeple). You probably thought that my subordinate clause was independent, because it contained a finite verb. Yes, it is a clause, but it doesn't quality as an independent clause, unless it contains a finite verb.