Gemmill

Are you sure they're not just changing it to a supplier that hasn't raised it's tariffs quite yet? 106941[/snapback] Don't think so - assume you're referring to gas and electric? Only £100 of the savings is from gas and electric - another £100 on the phone and same on the broadband. I know I'm getting ripped off on broadband cos I'm with BT. It recommends I go with Toucan, although I'm sure these are the Indian muppets that ring me up constantly.

If you're looking for low calorie alcohol, surely spirits is the key. Drink loads of vodka and whisky - it'll destroy your liver but you'll have no beer gut.

Just been looking there and I can save about £300 a year by switching my gas and electric, home phone and broadband provider, according to the good people at USwitch. If you haven't heard of it, they work out what you're currently paying, and what the better tariffs and suppliers are, and handle the switch-over themselves by linking you into the suppliers. Just wondering if there are any hidden hassles? www.uswitch.com if you're interested.

Sounds awful and I'm sure they all went into it being given all the warnings, but assuming nothing would happen to them. Not worth £150 a day to put yourself up for any drug that no one knows the long OR short term effects of IMO.

Aye, we. You know, the average, normal Western person who values our freedom. 106824[/snapback] Sounding like George Bush tbh.

Gemmill The reason you don't answer the questions is because you have no sensible way of doing so. Good of you to admit it, though. BTW Can you please give a link to one of these "big long responses which got them nowhere?" I've been following this thread and I haven't seen anything that refutes any of the points made byLM. a) You can't exactly criticise the concept of appointing a manager based on a good CV, can you? You can't refute the fact that Fred has backed all of the manager to the hilt financially. c) You can't refute that we used to get lower attendances than we get now, and that other clubs have that same potential but don't get the same level of attendance. All you can do is babble on about Fred being fat and that he makes daft statements to the media. Wow! Must be a shite Chairman. 106678[/snapback] I've labelled your points above a, b and c, the better for me to pontificate. a) Never have. However, if that appointment then fails, it's still a failure, regardless of how good or bad the CV was at the time of appointment. Something that LM doesn't accept. Never have. I would dispute his performance in other areas though - strategy, long term-planning, timeliness of decisions (being proactive rather than reactive), public relations, the list goes on. c) Never have. I do however refute the suggestion that Shepherd is the cause of these higher attendances. The higher attendances are in part down to the increased profile and relative success (no trophies, but a bit of glamour) of the club. They are also attributable in a big way to the boom in football's popularity. I can answer questions and do when I can be arsed - most of the time I'm on here is at work and I know you wouldn't approve of me writing long-winded replies on company time. As for the long replies people have given to LM, this thread is full of them mate.

The first maybe three lines of his response will be specific to what you've posted. The rest will be his stock in trade list of questions about other chairmen, other clubs, higher attendances, bottomless pits of money, employing managers with good CVs and backing them and all that palaver. And I know I'm guilty of not responding to his questions, but that's because I've seen people go to the trouble of writing big long responses which get them nowhere, so I find it easier and more rewarding to just mock him.

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."

They drew first blood, NOT ME!

Renton's just a mince boy. Nobody loves him.

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.

Don't get it.

Doesn't surprise me from someone stupid enough to be a scientologist.

According to you, it's what happens on the pitch that matters, no? So I'll name a few shall I? Villa, Leicester, Spurs, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea. They've all won stuff, we haven't. 106547[/snapback] It was Souness that led Blackburn to their latest trophy btw - the man's a GENIUS.

I agree, McCarthy takes some of the blame, but nowt will change at Sunderland, no matter who they bring in as manager, until Murray goes. By the way it's now mathematically impossible for them to catch us.

To be fair they didn't spend that much less than Wigan or West Ham in preseason but look at how they've performed, obviously Murray is part of the problem but the fact is that Mick of the mackems is a shite manager. 106519[/snapback] They bought in far more players than Wigan or West Ham though. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. 106523[/snapback] They only paid a fee for three of them, £1.8m for Stead? £1.25m for Kelvin Davis? Compare that with Chimbonda on a free or Benayoun for £2.5m. If you've only got peanuts to spend then its vital to spend it wisely, something Pardew and Jewell did but Mc Carthy obviously didn't. 106530[/snapback] The key isn't how much they spend, it's their wage bill. They only attract crap because Murray won't pay decent wages. 106533[/snapback] I very much doubt than any of West Ham's or Wigan's signings are on huge wages. Comparing the three clubs just shows that Mc Carthy is a shite manager, yes he didn't get much help from Murray but a lot of people have the misconception that the other two promoted teams showed much more ambition when in reality they didn't until they knew they were safe, they were just lucky to have the right men in place. 106534[/snapback] Wigan outbid us for Scott Parker and also tried to sign Owen. I don't think it's all that safe to assume that Wigan aren't offering pretty good wages - they have to to get people to go and play there. Something that hasn't dawned on Murray. West Ham less so because they're in London. It sounds to me like you've got a bit of an agenda when it comes to McCarthy tbh. I don't think he's a brilliant manager or anything, but the big problem at Sunderland is Bob Murray.

To be fair they didn't spend that much less than Wigan or West Ham in preseason but look at how they've performed, obviously Murray is part of the problem but the fact is that Mick of the mackems is a shite manager. 106519[/snapback] They bought in far more players than Wigan or West Ham though. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. 106523[/snapback] They only paid a fee for three of them, £1.8m for Stead? £1.25m for Kelvin Davis? Compare that with Chimbonda on a free or Benayoun for £2.5m. If you've only got peanuts to spend then its vital to spend it wisely, something Pardew and Jewell did but Mc Carthy obviously didn't. 106530[/snapback] The key isn't how much they spend, it's their wage bill. They only attract crap because Murray won't pay decent wages.

Peeow Peeow!

You three would be in the slammer by now if admin saw sense and introduced the N-O rules over here!

Scott Mills is fucking quality, he's the only reason I can stomach to listen to Radio 1 nowadays. 106401[/snapback] Seriously, you would have to be a total moron to find Scott Mills entertaining. No offence like.

Any manager that wants to achieve anything is wasting their time going there as long as Murray is Chairman. Zero ambition = Zero cash.

"I have heard a little rumour that Michael has a clause in his contract which states he can leave Newcastle United in one year's time. "I can tell you now that he hasn't. Of course Michael has clauses in his contract. In this day and age, all top players do. Alan Shearer does. But that is not one of them." 106477[/snapback] So he doesn't actually say he hasn't got a clause allowing him to leave if a £12million bid is received does he? He doesn't say he hasn't got a clause in his contract that would let him leave for less than we paid for him either. 106478[/snapback] He told his wife he loved her this morning as well.

One of my mates got hit on the head when we were in juniors and went cross-eyed in one eye. He stayed like that for about 6 months - it was hilarious.

Only a bean counting desk monkey such as you could glean so much enjoyment from punctation. 106426[/snapback] Two man attacks tbh.