manc-mag

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said. what's wrong with you ? What exactly does "would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision. I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing. You're bonkers mate. More buffoonery from you. Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials. The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you. You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake. As has been said, if being proved correct is a "clot", what does it say about those who disagreed with me, like you disagree with everything I post. The inference about Pardew is clear. But, again, you babble on and go around in circles rather than just be honest about it. The quote from Tecato was also part of a bigger picture comment, see my own sig. Every single person on here knows where I stand with regard to the old and the new owner of the football club. And, with regard to that, I have not changed my view, and unlike yourself and others, if I ever have cause to do so, I will admit that I changed my view because my initial one was incorrect. You should try it sometime, instead of continuing with that superiority complex you have. My comments about Jonas stands. Pardew had nothing to do with that decision, despite your clear insinuation that he either had, or even may have done. Can you get back onto the thread, and reply, rather than following me around like this ? You're clearly not in your right mind old son so I'll leave it at that. so you are saying that you didn't mention Pardew then ? The very fact I specifically repeat the name "Pardew", in addressing your remark about "Pardew", which in turn commented upon my remark about "Pardew" only serves to reinforce my belief you're making things up and aren't mentally well.

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect. To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though. The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations. It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it. I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent. Even the Bert Luque one?? And the Owen one?? To me, they were both cases of 'get him in', regardless of any future deals. Sorry, yes that was oversimplifying things to a degree. But to address it to those examples, what I mean is if you pay the sort of transfer fees we paid for those players, you don't sign them to a two month contract-the fee reflects the fact you've 'got' them for a certain amount of time, to do with as you see fit during that period, depending on prevailing circumstances. Which also means you're goosed if your club is in disarray, they've got no respect for you, you pay them too much and nobody else wants to take them off your hands at the wages you're paying them.

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said. what's wrong with you ? What exactly does "would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision. I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing. You're bonkers mate. More buffoonery from you. Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials. The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you. You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake. As has been said, if being proved correct is a "clot", what does it say about those who disagreed with me, like you disagree with everything I post. The inference about Pardew is clear. But, again, you babble on and go around in circles rather than just be honest about it. The quote from Tecato was also part of a bigger picture comment, see my own sig. Every single person on here knows where I stand with regard to the old and the new owner of the football club. And, with regard to that, I have not changed my view, and unlike yourself and others, if I ever have cause to do so, I will admit that I changed my view because my initial one was incorrect. You should try it sometime, instead of continuing with that superiority complex you have. My comments about Jonas stands. Pardew had nothing to do with that decision, despite your clear insinuation that he either had, or even may have done. Can you get back onto the thread, and reply, rather than following me around like this ? You're clearly not in your right mind old son so I'll leave it at that.

You can't do logical extension with Leazes, it's a waste of time. And while you're at pains to maintain the diplomacy with him, a blind man on a galloping horse can see why he gets stick with all due respect. To state my position clearly, for me the narrative that every deal is done with a view solely to sell-on profit is a nonsense and a completely emotion driven response to losing players we're attached to. There are numerous examples to discredit it; Barton on a free, Nolan, Enrique (the worst example of all for me as it happens...the expense of replacing him with a player at more or less identical cost not to mention the risk inherent in losing an established performer for an unproven one). Every contract term that's offered will be done with a view to getting the best fee if it comes to sale, but that's true of every contract that's ever been drafted post-Bosman. It doesn't automatically follow we'll sell just because we've got them on a longer deal though. The narrative that I subscribe to (I think I'm possibly alone in it in fact) is that players will simply be shipped unless they conform to the new wage structure and that that will be a decision taken entirely independent of footballing reasons in each case. Thus if we got rid of Colo it'll not be principally because we wanted to get a transfer windfall out of him, it'll be because under no circumstances could the club and players remuneration aspirations be reconciled. That for me will have been the main issue with Enrique. He'll have wanted improved terms because he'd had a couple of good seasons and it's normal for a player to be able to expect that will be forthcoming on renewal provided they're in demand with at least one other club, but to do so would have put him appreciably higher than Tiote, which then sets a precedent for every incoming and current players wage negotiations. It's wage pressure that will mean players leave and everyone at the club will be very clearly on notice about that and geared to dealing with the best exit for the club. That's not the same thing as saying that every player is bought and signed up to terms solely with a view to a transfer profit however, and I distance myself from that narrative at all times because the evidence is against it. I also subscribe to the narrative that player transfer fee surpluses won't necessarily get put back into the team. At the same time, I don't say things as naive as 'every penny in should clearly be mirrored in transfer fees paid out'. However I think the continued refusal to buy a striker with recent surplus funds was more prejudicial than prudent.

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said. what's wrong with you ? What exactly does "would lead to Pardew make a strong case for his retention" mean, if it doesn't imply that Pardew played a significant part in this decision. I don't believe that for a moment, and if anyone else other than me said it, you'd be agreeing. You're bonkers mate. More buffoonery from you. Read my post. What's the first line (that you've conveniently omitted)? I said I was surprised with the news and that this surprise was based on the financials (because they clearly take precedence at NUFC) and that the only way I could make any sense of it was if his wages did not exceed Cheick's. I'm consistently on record (numerous threads) as saying that all players will go who don't fall in line with the financials. The bit about Pardew (mentioned second) was saying that you could see how he'd want to keep hold of him due to what he offers, not that he gets his way and is backed to the hilt regardless of cost. Ayatollah Hermione even points this out to you. You're clearly still massively stinging from HF's post (Tecato's sig) because your eagerness to go argue the toss since then has gone through the roof, even by your standards, to the extent you're now prepared to just make things up. You were exposed as a bit of a clot and it should really have been your cue to either pipe down or leave the forum (again), but instead you're insisting on compounding how daft you already look. Just count how many people in this thread alone are telling you that you appear foolish to them and try to have some self-awareness for your own sake.

From what I can gather, the only thing he's saying is that he fervently disagrees with something that I never actually said.

Lest we forget-shot in both eyes, what are the chances?

Fair point that. I think these things are usually kept firmly confidential provided the parent doesn't broadcast it though so I'd assume Wacky could manage that side of things. For me it's about being put at your ease that it's taken seriously and the ill effects are minimised/not compounded because the school still has a definite role to play there. If they can do that to your satisfaction (and asap) it's one you want dealt with amongst the immediate parties and put behind you.

I can see that being true like-so the question would have to be was he adequately supervised. Arguably not if he was still soiled when you saw him. Think you'd have to ask him about that gently because obviously the flip side of the coin is he's probably not going to have wanted an over attentive teaching assistant compounding his embarrassment by inspecting the clean up in minute detail. Have to just apply common sense on that one and see if you're persuaded that they got the balance right.

Sounds like you've been reasonable thus far mate so all your options are open - you want to see exactly what their response is before you're demanding any particular action (as your lad has to have an ongoing relationship with his teacher), but you're well within your rights to stress how seriously you view the situation; if not the initial error, then certainly the ongoing failure to deal with the 'mess' afterwards. I'd be focusing on the potential bullying effect (effectively caused by her) and saying that you want to be put at your ease about what they're going to do to guard against this. Also, if you're going to take notes, read them back to her at the end and ask her to sign them to confirm any admissions (of fault) and actions they've agreed on for dealing with the matter. She almost certainly won't sign anything without a union rep present, but for now it'll show you've a very methodical approach and are unlikely to stand for any messing about/brushing under the carpet. Good luck with it btw and I hope your lad is able to put it behind him and enjoy his schooling as he should.

How many times does this have to happen before he actually gets locked up like any other non footballing rapists? No idea of the facts at all like but speaking in legal generalities the sexual assault (one person's word against another/difficult to prove) may well go away once again as they often do, but the possession of a Class A (simple matter of fact) could see him end up in a fair bit of bother this time. Assuming the drugs are actually Class A, usual defences include someone had borrowed an item of clothing and left the drugs there/someone else had been in his car/house and left the drugs there all unbeknownst to the arrestee (and hence they never actually 'possessed' them), so we'll see which one he goes for.

Sorry, that was what I was implying. Ie strengthen in the window and let those go who've now proved themselves to be not quite of the required standard. If Santon is playing at the time btw and we're not therefore presenting as absolutely desperate for a replacement, it's a position we should be able to pick up good cover for for a reasonable fee imho. As long as we're doing our homework before then.

I'd rather Perch was away too. He's not currently getting in the team though.

The good thing about R Taylor (apart from his set pieces) is that he doesn't divide opinion. Everyone can see he's not up to it. A measures of how improved the side is should be how often someone who's clearly not good enough can get in the team. With that in mind, I'd be encouraged if he was no longer here at the start of next season.

Nice village (as are others around it) but it is full of absolute twatish arseholes as you say.

Tiote's game is to literally just chase a ball around an area of the field where it's getting pinged from one player to another (or in other words by chasing around, to prevent them from being able to ping it about with impunity). He operates in the most fluid area of the pitch. Given that, I accept that a certain number of Tiote's tackles will be miss timed. Not that some aren't a bit needless mind I grant you.

For me, I think with a Tiote in front of you, both your centre backs should look better, and with a Tiote in front of you and a Colo alongside you, your weaker centre half should still look decent. That's not having a dig at Taylor as that's simply the way it should be-you're centre halves should have the protection of a combative CM pressurising/breaking down oppo attacks, rather than being the first line of defence. The top clubs always have it, sadly it's not normally the NUFC way as we prefer to let opponents run directly at our defence unhindered, which is why we're so appreciative of Cheick. The defence deserve that support so they can defend as a unit rather than having to break lines and go jumping into marauding attackers like sacrificial lambs. I'll never be a Saylor fan, but he's doing a good job and it's not luck, he's capable given the context I've described above. On Tiote, the addition of Cabaye playing more advanced looks promising. Tiote has to do one thing for me and thats harry and break up attacks, he shouldn't even look to make a forward pass as he is emphatically not a footballer, he's an athlete who can chase around all day and win possession. His completed pass record is fantastic but that's because most of them will be five yard lay offs once he's stolen the ball. Good, don't do anything else with it, when he tries I whince. If Cabaye is around to pick it up off him then I think the relationship should be naturally very complementary and I'm pretty excited about it, particularly as Cabaye's clearly looking to put in a shift too and not just stand around waiting for balls to break to him.

This was my initial question and why I was surprised we'd been able to retain him. I'd assumed he was on appreciably more than our modern top earner (Tiote) so now I'm guessing the deal was ultimately do-able because he was on roughly the same amount, and hence it didn't involve a departure from the new remuneration levels we've put in place. At the very least I'm guessing it was because he wasn't insisting on improved terms (cf Barton and Enrique). It would be really instructive to know what the terms of the deal are actually as this is the first time during our French/loan recruitment drive that one of the pre-relegation (presumed) higher earners has been retained.

No, I don't. But not surprisingly you automatically think I must do just because my view isn't the polar opposite of yours. I said I was treating it with a degree of cynicism... but that's not agreeing with you. The crux of your problem - someone has YOU HAVE to be right and everyone else has to be wrong. Nonsense. The allusion most people making is that him signing the contract is a 'win-win' situation for NUFC which it undoubtedly is. Worst case scenario is we end up flogging him but we'll make money out of him than we would if he hadn't. I'm bemused by your obvious belief that it isn't a good thing to have happened. of course its a good thing, I've said so. My "disagreement" [for want of a better description] was the insinuation by mancmag that for some reason a major factor behind this development was Pardew actually being allowed to decide who he wanted to keep at the club to build a good football team with. Which is clearly rubbish, and you also have agreed with this. If my judgement proves to be incorrect and they start to assist Pardew to put together a good team and keep his best players and/or who he wants to keep, then I will, unlike others, admit I am wrong, Where? Astonishing interpretation. Literally doesn't matter what I or certain other posters write anymore, you'll just make it up for us as you go along. A sad case these days and really nothing more than that.

just. what. the. fuck? Anyway, Jonas Gutierrez. Good re-signing. End off.

go with your convictions man, go on, make a judgement and stand by it About what...what is it you're so needy about you want me to make a prediction on? Truly bizarre behaviour of late, even by your usual lows. needy = obsessed/make me laugh out loud ? If "low" means calling something correctly for over 4 years, wtf do you think of someone who gets it all spectacularly wrong ? Keep up the hand-wringing nonsense. fucking hell not really surprised you don't comprehend your own absurdity. Well it was a simple enough question if you're being critical of comprehension. The response wasn't unexpected though I spose.

go with your convictions man, go on, make a judgement and stand by it About what...what is it you're so needy about you want me to make a prediction on? Truly bizarre behaviour of late, even by your usual lows. needy = obsessed/make me laugh out loud ? If "low" means calling something correctly for over 4 years, wtf do you think of someone who gets it all spectacularly wrong ? Keep up the hand-wringing nonsense. fucking hell

go with your convictions man, go on, make a judgement and stand by it About what...what is it you're so needy about you want me to make a prediction on? Truly bizarre behaviour of late, even by your usual lows. Who's gonna win X Factor?

go with your convictions man, go on, make a judgement and stand by it About what...what is it you're so needy about you want me to make a prediction on? Truly bizarre behaviour of late, even by your usual lows.