manc-mag

They have a virtually identical number of posts each, which over an aggregated total of roughly 7,000 (quite a range), suggests that this is probably deliberate- meaning that whatever freak of nature is behind the split personas, he doesnt favour either one identity over the other.

Too late I reckon. He's already on the treadmill, as pissed as you like.

The beer gut will be a diet thing mate. Doesnt matter about exercise really. You could do all sorts of eg sit ups etc and you'd just have a six pack under your beer gut.

Was it a nice arse though? And why have you got Donohue v Stevenson in your sig btw????? Have you found a snail in your ginger beer?

the voters ? poor comparison mind ...... 106720[/snapback] Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference? You're seriously deluded. By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem. *Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter 106728[/snapback] So are the others I've mentioned, as i said all of them bar 2 have won cups since we have. So why Liverpool ? because they are the ONLY ones....as I said, raised expectations...football didn't start in 1992, and coming runners up 4 times since then without coming first doesn't make you shit or your board of directors either... You aren't the only one who wants to win stuff, we all do. We have got closer to it and competed for it more consistently than all the other clubs of a "comparable size" to us, or able to compete, and beat us having done it before. By picking only Liverpool you are effectively putting us in a 2 team league finishing bottom.... The boards and chairman of ALL those other big city clubs could challenge us if they wanted to, or ambitious enough, but the simple fact is, they aren't. 106788[/snapback] With regards to managerial appoinments: A good CV gives someone the 'right' to apply for a job. They then have an interview where they discuss their ideas and strategy, this is logical. I want to know what part of Dalgleish's interview Freddie liked, the bit about selling Ginola, Ferdinand and Asprilla? The bit about buying Anderson, Guivarch and Glass? The bit about investing in young players like Serrant and Hamilton? A good CV is fine but you need to know a mangers plans before you employ him. Common sense. 106881[/snapback] Testify tbh! Not heard it put any better than that so far! I would absolutely love to hear how the Souness interview went. Though it should be remembered that Gemmill backed him to the bitter end, so it's really his fault in hindsight.

Grandmaster Flash: White Lines

the voters ? poor comparison mind ...... 106720[/snapback] Aye fair enough...who then turn on her* as she is no longer perceived to be making the right decisions to take the country in the right direction and so she resigns. Whats the difference? You're seriously deluded. By the way re the question why I chose Liverpool as opposed to another club. They're a comparable size to us and they win stuff. Thats what I want us to do. I want us to be mre like them than Everton. You're content to just be 'better than Everton'. Which is part of the problem. *Thatcher/Major.....it doesnt really matter

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] This epitomises how you blank everything you dont agree with. I've said on more than one occasion that there are more than 2 trophies on offer per season. If you finish in the top 6 then there are four. Assuming you think top six is a realistic (ie not completely outlandish) aspiration for NUFC then stop saying there are only 2 trophies. I know you can hark back to Westwood etc which is more than most of us on here can and I know you compare us favourably now as to then in terms of expenditure etc. Not many on here can recall those days I grant you-I think this is what gets to you though and what colours your opinions-you think we dont have any appreciation of when we were shiiiiyyyiiiiiiite and so we should all shut up. However 1) thats not true (any of us on here under the age of 40 dont have any actual memory of us winning anything in our lifetimes!) and 2) it's not relevant to the debate about how Freddy is the right man to bring success (apart from the fact that he spends money and this is necessary-but this is agreed upon and therefore is not in issue. It sounds harsh but in all honesty your position is what is wrong with this club. You would never ever hear a Liverpool fan saying Freddy's 'achievements' and behaviour/professionalism are acceptable for LFC. It's all about what you're willing to settle for and to be honest you set your standards for NUFC low. These are the conditions for under achievement. You dont look for where we can improve (in terms of chairmen) instead it's always, how we 'could be a lot worse'-true enough but that is not a reason to simply accept the status quo. If Freddy was singlehandedly responsible for say the upturn in attendances and hence the extra revenues (that he is spending) then obviously you'd say he's doing something over and above what anyone else could do. That of course is absolute rubbish and everyone knows it. 106644[/snapback] aahhh now we are getting somewhere. Is Fred the man to lead us to success? Why not ? I think so, but you don't ? If you don't, why not ? If you think the criteria he uses to appoint the manager who will lead us to success on the field, is wrong, where ? This is the answer to success on the field, is it not ? And I stand by the comment that being the 5th most successful club in the country isn't failure, because it isn't. Its not first, but successful to a degree comparitively , because there is no other way of measuring it unless you say everybody except the 2 trophy winners are failures. I also stand by the comment that he is responsible for keeping the club competing at the top levels. Of course he is, if he isn't then who else is ? Why do you think it is beyond comprehension that he could sit on a tightly run club and let it slide away like other clubs, and our own, in the past ? This is why I draw attention to other clubs, keeping a club competing is still relevant. Why do you choose the Liverpool comparison, we concede they have been more successful over the last decade, however the vast majority of other big city clubs have not. Our overall standing taking aside manure and chelsea because they have different rules, is 3rd. Failure ? Rubbish? I think not. You are using the comparative now BTW ..... ironic ? and why not say that Martin Edwards wasn't exactly a model of morality, but did manu give a toss, no they didn't and no one on here gave a toss about Fred when we were winning in Rotterdam and whats more the next time we are in the Champs League you won't give a toss then either. PS Gemmill.....spot the "made up" bit 106659[/snapback] Seriously, are you drunk?

Gemmill tbh.

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] LM's posts can be categorised in the same way that they name episodes of Friends. This is "The one where Leazes tells us all how good Shepherd is." He's also got "The one where Leazes tells us how good Bellamy is", "The one where Leazes tells us how crap Souness is" and " The one where Leazes makes something up and attributes it to whoever he's arguing with." On General Chat he has "The one where everyone should get the death penalty." I think that pretty much covers all of his posts tbh. 106629[/snapback] well you are making that up ? Or explain and show otherwise ? I certainly didn't make up the fact that you backed Souness until the end, nor the fact you appear not to understand the financial implications of the chairman backing not just him but all of his managers, but particular the position Souness put us in with his reckless attitude towards shipping out and bringing in players.And the good running of the company, in comparison with the club in the past and all the other big city clubs. Are you really an accountant ? 106643[/snapback] "The one where Leazes lists a load of mistakes Shepherd has made/overseen and attributes them to me." 106647[/snapback] Are you really an accountant? Do you go to the audits? Fuck me gently! I fear this is all falling on deaf ears again. With big 70's sideburns. Probably. tbh.

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise. 106575[/snapback] I haven't maneouevred at all. My point is the same as its always been. Shepherd is a good chairman, he is running the club well and enabling the club to compete for international players and is appointing managers with winning pedigrees and giving them the backing to succeed. This is what makes him good, because he is doing better than the vast majority of all the other big city clubs, and tapping the clubs resources better than all of our other chairman bar SJH in the last 50 years at least. You, and NO ONE, can put forward any FACTS to prove anything in the above paragraph is anything but a true factual statement. Anyone with any sense will basically see how he has pushed out the boat financially to strive for success, and no one can come up with any other criteria to guarantee the successful manager to win one of only 2 trophies than what is already being applied. 106616[/snapback] This epitomises how you blank everything you dont agree with. I've said on more than one occasion that there are more than 2 trophies on offer per season. If you finish in the top 6 then there are four. Assuming you think top six is a realistic (ie not completely outlandish) aspiration for NUFC then stop saying there are only 2 trophies. I know you can hark back to Westwood etc which is more than most of us on here can and I know you compare us favourably now as to then in terms of expenditure etc. Not many on here can recall those days I grant you-I think this is what gets to you though and what colours your opinions-you think we dont have any appreciation of when we were shiiiiyyyiiiiiiite and so we should all shut up. However 1) thats not true (any of us on here under the age of 40 dont have any actual memory of us winning anything in our lifetimes!) and 2) it's not relevant to the debate about how Freddy is the right man to bring success (apart from the fact that he spends money and this is necessary-but this is agreed upon and therefore is not in issue. It sounds harsh but in all honesty your position is what is wrong with this club. You would never ever hear a Liverpool fan saying Freddy's 'achievements' and behaviour/professionalism are acceptable for LFC. It's all about what you're willing to settle for and to be honest you set your standards for NUFC low. These are the conditions for under achievement. You dont look for where we can improve (in terms of chairmen) instead it's always, how we 'could be a lot worse'-true enough but that is not a reason to simply accept the status quo. If Freddy was singlehandedly responsible for say the upturn in attendances and hence the extra revenues (that he is spending) then obviously you'd say he's doing something over and above what anyone else could do. That of course is absolute rubbish and everyone knows it.

"So what's a goblin?"

Nobody could save Alex from that fate tbh. Leazes though, seriously you are obsessed. Every way you choose to weight an argument as to what determines 'signs of success or progress' (and you've maneouevred considerably) has been addressed with examples of where we've been found wanting. Most recently this has gone from 'how much more money etc etc' has Freddy pumped into the club than previous chairmen- because this has been addressed by compelling remarks that, by and large Freddy hasnt been the generator of the sort of cash that other chairmen havent had the luxury of, to remarks about how much further we've come than other comparable clubs-which has now been answered on several ocasions by compelling examples of how comparable and much 'smaller' clubs have actually won trophies where we've won nowt! It's getting daft. And as for people not answering your points, dare I suggest it's become something to do with fatigue at the fact that you simply abandon an argument once its been defeated and start all over again with a completely new premise.

Don't get it. 106567[/snapback] It ridicules the way people actually believe it matters what exact way you choose to worship God that determines whether you get into heaven. And how ridiculous it would sound if there was in fact one proper way and that all others were a complete waste of time. Its just brilliantly sent up, with a sort of camp, touchy feely admin officer walking around a reception area in heaven. When asked he checks his clipboard and answers in a conciliatory way-as though there could be any possible concelation to anyone who wasnt mormon!

Scene in heaven-all races, creeds and faiths milling about desperately trying to discover their fate: "Who gets into Heaven?" "I'm afraid it was the Mormons. Yes, the Mormons were the correct answer" Complete genius!

Went to Minor League game in Florida once and it was quite good. Like most sports I suppose you get a far better appreciation of the skills involved when you watch it live. 105253[/snapback] Unprovoked Soopafan alert

I've got a K750i and have had it for ages and the joystick has yet to break. I suspect you have spastic hammer hands. 105242[/snapback] More adept at handling little joysticks tbh.

Thats a front bottom. I dont have a front bottom, so I dont. 105214[/snapback] As Patrick off Eastenders would say: Yeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan! 105217[/snapback] Is he still doing Pat? 105222[/snapback] No, they got rumbled by Stacey and she grassed him up to Yolande in the Vic. You should have been there, it was a right old ding-dong! Yolande opened a can of Red Stripe whoop ass on Pat and Patrick. Now he's pussy-whipped worse than Wacky! 105226[/snapback] Him a fool if he let Yolande dis' him like dat. A damn fool. Him want to show 'er the back of his hand jus a lickkle bit you understand. 105227[/snapback] The dirty dog will be livin on a diet of rice and peas for a long time if Yolande has her way. 105231[/snapback] Aye, he'll be off the jerk lobster for a bit to be sure. 105232[/snapback] He could do with a spell off that tbh. My favourite Eastender at the minute is Dawn Miller aka Kara Tointon, cracking set, shapely rear and a cheeky smile. Dorty bint! 105241[/snapback] Alex's is Jim. For the same reasons.

Thats a front bottom. I dont have a front bottom, so I dont. 105214[/snapback] As Patrick off Eastenders would say: Yeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan! 105217[/snapback] Is he still doing Pat? 105222[/snapback] No, they got rumbled by Stacey and she grassed him up to Yolande in the Vic. You should have been there, it was a right old ding-dong! Yolande opened a can of Red Stripe whoop ass on Pat and Patrick. Now he's pussy-whipped worse than Wacky! 105226[/snapback] Him a fool if he let Yolande dis' him like dat. A damn fool. Him want to show 'er the back of his hand jus a lickkle bit you understand. 105227[/snapback] The dirty dog will be livin on a diet of rice and peas for a long time if Yolande has her way. 105231[/snapback] Aye, he'll be off the jerk lobster for a bit to be sure.

Isiah?? (one 'eyes higher' than the other!)

Thats a front bottom. I dont have a front bottom, so I dont. 105214[/snapback] As Patrick off Eastenders would say: Yeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan! 105217[/snapback] Is he still doing Pat? 105222[/snapback] No, they got rumbled by Stacey and she grassed him up to Yolande in the Vic. You should have been there, it was a right old ding-dong! Yolande opened a can of Red Stripe whoop ass on Pat and Patrick. Now he's pussy-whipped worse than Wacky! 105226[/snapback] Him a fool if he let Yolande dis' him like dat. A damn fool. Him want to show 'er the back of his hand jus a lickkle bit you understand.

Alright.....no need to rub it in!

Thats a front bottom. I dont have a front bottom, so I dont. 105214[/snapback] As Patrick off Eastenders would say: Yeeeeeeeeeahhhhhhhhhh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan! 105217[/snapback] Is he still doing Pat?

I'm alreet I've got a season ticket, it's my uncle whose knackered!!!! Come on you bastards, sell me your ticket!!! 105206[/snapback] Let him go on yours then 105208[/snapback] You may have 8000+ posts Alex but you come out with some ludicrous shit sometimes. 105215[/snapback] Aye.....about 8,000+ times

Thats a front bottom. I dont have a front bottom, so I dont.