Howaythelads

Red doesn't suit you but you still wear that fucking tracksuit. 79050[/snapback] It would suit red hair and acne, though. 79052[/snapback] I wouldn't know, Rambo. 79054[/snapback]

Loads of people leave their country of birth to live and work in foreign places and manage quite well with very little support, I've done it myself. Generally, most people don't need someone to wipe their arse once they've got past 2 or 3 years old.

Red doesn't suit you but you still wear that fucking tracksuit. 79050[/snapback] It would suit red hair and acne, though.

Sensible post Alex, exactly what I think about it, must mean you're a moron as well, mate. So join the club. 78885[/snapback] No, no. Just you. 78887[/snapback] Tut tut. mo·ron A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. Let's hope that the next time I offend someone on here it'll be acceptable to everybody. 78898[/snapback] Sounds spot on to me. 78950[/snapback] Just like Souness being a good manager, and Ameobi being a replacement for Shearer both sounded spot on to you, anarl.

Some will actually agree with that, mate.

I'll give you evens 78834[/snapback] 40/1 at Billy Hill, Alex.

So is criminal conviction the only measure of misconduct for footballers? 78874[/snapback] Any reason in particular why you're asking? I thought we were talking about the club's debt. 78883[/snapback] I realised it was you who said the thing about on/off the pitch after you replied to Gemmill. The point is if "football is different" which implies footballers don't have "real world" standards then how do you measure misconduct? It applies to the debt as apparently the damage to the finances caused by Souness devaluing Bellamy is huge. I also noted that Gemmill pointed out that from an accountancy pov Player's are worth their price not their perceived worth. Therefore Bellamy's sale had an even more minimal effect from a purely financial pov (and a benefit allowing for write-down). 78890[/snapback] It doesn't imply that to me and wasn't what I was thinking. But since you mention it.... how can you expect all footballers to have real world standards? They are all human beings, they are all different. Some will deal with the fame and the money better than others, some will be arseholes. They'd be arseholes whether they are footballers or not, because that's their nature, it's how they are. Some that are borderline might be turned into wankers by the riches, who knows? All I'm saying is that you can't automatically expect someone to be 'Mr Sensible' just because they have a load of money. It comes with the territory these days and is typified by the youth all around to be honest. There's no respect in society in general, it's a big issue and is not restricted to footballers. So for example, I'm frankly not in the least bit concerned about Bellamy calling Souness a liar in the media, or Bellamy telling Shrek and Babayaro they were signing for a shit manager. I know it's not ideal, but I'm interested in how the team performs, so I'm far more bothered that Bellamy is correct, because the fact Souness is shit has a greater impact on the team than Bellamy saying so in public.

Sensible post Alex, exactly what I think about it, must mean you're a moron as well, mate. So join the club. 78885[/snapback] No, no. Just you. 78887[/snapback] Tut tut. mo·ron A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. Let's hope that the next time I offend someone on here it'll be acceptable to everybody.

Good to know you're not interested in the future stability of the football club.

Sensible post Alex, exactly what I think about it, must mean you're a moron as well, mate. So join the club.

So is criminal conviction the only measure of misconduct for footballers? 78874[/snapback] Any reason in particular why you're asking? I thought we were talking about the club's debt.

I'm sure LM has implied in the past that short of criminal conviction, nothing a players does off the pitch "counts" as long as they do the business on it. 78872[/snapback] That would be me actually. Although the statement you make isn't entirely correct, I did post something close to that a while ago. It wasn't a 'implication', by the way.

Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] and a manager doesn't assault his employee on the training ground .. the point is Gem, football is different, footballers are the valuable commodity not the other way round, they call the tune, if you lose them you can't replace them by putting a vacancy in an agency or the job centre.......and thats why these managers are also paid a lot of money 78725[/snapback] Good point. Don't expect a reply that addresses it properly. 78836[/snapback] Professionals are professionals, regardless of their line of work, how much they earn, or whether or not they command a transfer value, and they're expected to conduct themselves accordingly. I can't think of a club or a manager in the Premier League that would have put up with being called a liar by a player on national TV. No-one would put up with that, and nor should they, regardless of the "valuable commodity....can't be replaced down the job centre" stuff. How's that for a reply that addresses it properly? Doesn't matter how good a player Bellamy is or was. He signed his own death warrant at Newcastle United, regardless of whether of whether you believe there was provocation from Souness or not. 78842[/snapback] Credit for trying. No points for the content though. Football IS different, despite what you may want to beleive.

Agreed. We aren't doing particularly well, and we're doing nowhere near well enough to warrant the sort of dividends that the directors pay themselves, but we're not in any immediate financial danger. 78706[/snapback] It would be a more important point if you'd written....... We aren't doing particularly well, and we're doing nowhere near well enough to give the club the ability to continue spending, having spent £50m bringing in new employees in the last year or so. 78833[/snapback] It would be an entirely different point, no more or less important. Thanks though. 78839[/snapback] No, it would be more important to mention the £50m spent, than the comparative small amount taken in dividends. I say this on the basis that the club is in the shit because an incompetent manager has been funded to the tune of £50m, not because dividends have been paid to directors. In addition, you choose to talk about director dividends despite the fact that millions of directors are taking dividends from companies ( both good and bad ones) all over the place.

Golden rule of being an employee, you NEVER, NEVER go on national TV and call your manager, and by implication, the Chairman of the company you work for, a liar....... 78657[/snapback] and a manager doesn't assault his employee on the training ground .. the point is Gem, football is different, footballers are the valuable commodity not the other way round, they call the tune, if you lose them you can't replace them by putting a vacancy in an agency or the job centre.......and thats why these managers are also paid a lot of money 78725[/snapback] Good point. Don't expect a reply that addresses it properly.

Agreed. We aren't doing particularly well, and we're doing nowhere near well enough to warrant the sort of dividends that the directors pay themselves, but we're not in any immediate financial danger. 78706[/snapback] It would be a more important point if you'd written....... We aren't doing particularly well, and we're doing nowhere near well enough to give the club the ability to continue spending, having spent £50m bringing in new employees in the last year or so.

How about......... Fulham A - Lose BlackBurn H - Draw Man City A - Lose Portsmouth H - Draw Villa A - Lose Everton H - Draw Bolton H - Lose Man Utd A - Lose Liverpool H - Lose Charlton A - Lose Spurs H - Lose Boro A - Lose Wigan H - Draw Sunderland A - Draw West Brom H - Win Brum A - Lose Chelsea H - Lose Charlton H - Win Who's going to score the goals we'll need to win matches and take the pressure of the defenders? They make enough mistakes as it is, compounded by the fact they know conceding just 1 goal nowadays makes it a battle to get anything from a match. They're likely to make even more errors at the back under those circumstances.

Not likely, though.

Gut feeling is that Shearer thinks he's more important than the club, he went a long way to proving that in his dispute with Gullit. On the other hand, if he's able to attract good players to the club then he'd have a chance, comes down to whether his ego gets in the way, as it does with Souness. Big gamble imo. Would rather not see it happen, I think he's been holding the club back for the last 2 years and the club needs to start afresh.

Just returning the compliment, Craig. I can post lies on a forum as well, you know.

You followed up this childish rubbish with a number of petty snipes in later posts. Does you no credit, Craig. Show me the post(s) where you think I was reading selectively, show me the posts that prompted the childish comments you've been aiming toward me. Anyway, not that I expect you to believe me....I've never said that FS is a great Chairman, so it would seem it is you who reads selectively. Not very long ago I placed a post on the board pointing out how I thought FS is prone to error because he appoints managers for one character trait only, and that this is a reason why we fail. I've also posted a number of times that I think he knows fcuk all about football. Ignored by you, and then the idea I think FS is great is spread around as lies by you in your haste to portray me as believiing something I've never believed in. Good show, mate. As I say, this kind of stuff does you no credit at all. Doh! Seems to me that you make your mind up what someone is posting before you've even read the post. BTW It's not rocket science to come up with the idea a club needs to be properly run from top to bottom to be successful. I think everyone would agree with that, so again, you appear to have made up your mind before you even read a post. I'd be surprised if you were able to find any post from me anywhere that would indicate I think a shit club could be successful. 76759[/snapback] There goes another keyboard.... Do you do short-hand for HTT or is it the other way round? 76771[/snapback] Good to know you think a well run club is one where a Chairman interferes in team affairs.

What's that supposed to mean? Just answer a question, it's pretty easy. Who identifies the players to bring to the club in order to build a team? 76120[/snapback] The scouts! OK, pedency apart, it's Souness, but then I've never disputed that! Answer this simple one then in return: Who has the final say-so by slapping his signature on the cheque and has the power to say "not on your life am I buying that piece of shit!"? 76361[/snapback] This is something a manager would say should a club have a Chairman who is involved in team affairs when he shouldn't be. 76367[/snapback] 76370[/snapback] The final refuge. Obviously you believe a Chairman should be saying those words to a manager when in disagreement with the manager's decision on a team affairs issue, which means you are in favour of interference in team affairs by a Chairman. Wouldn't mind you telling me how any Chairman is supposed to convince ANY manager to join any club under those circumstances. 76389[/snapback] Sorry to get involved but i think this point of view is a kind of riposte to Leazes Mag. LM (i believe) has frequently stated that if you back Souness then you must, by inference back all of his decisions including getting rid of Bellamy and Robert. LM's support of Freddie was then felt to be hypocritical by some (me included) as by those standards LM must clearly back the appointment of Souness in the first place, and his continued employment. I think i'm right in this (regarding other people's opinions) but i most humbly apologise if i'm wrong. Also, i have no wish to re-open that debate with LM, i respect his stance and we've all discussed it to death which probably accounts for Craig's reluctance. 76430[/snapback] I can't see your point chocchip, I've said that I what I think of FS appointing Souness, but also one bad appointment doesn't make a bad chairman. It doesn't change the fact that FS is a good chairman because all the other managers he has appointed have been welcomed by the majority of the clubs support, as they were all successful, and built good teams, and left good sets of players at their previous clubs. Isn't this the same criteria we are all seeing when we are looking at Hitzfeld and Hiddink ? FS also backs his managers to the hilt, to the level of Newcastle United financially, and allows them the freedom to do their jobs. That, to coin a phrase, is a "proper" chairman. i can say this, because i said from the start i wasn't happy with Souness, but everyone who supported Souness to be successful, by saying give him time, are in no position to slag off freddie for appointing Souness because they agreed with it ! Souness getting rid of Bellamy is different, because i didn't support him. And I didn't support because he always has been, and always will be, a shit manager. If anything, his treatment of Bellamy proved to me conclusively that I had judged him correctly. By the same token, Bobby Robson sold Solano, but that didn't make him a bad manager either. 76432[/snapback] LM, apologies if my post seemed to be a criticism of your views. I was presuming the perception of your views was the basis for Craig's stance with HTL. I'm more than aware of your opinions . I don't necessarily agree with all of them but i listen to what you have to say. Didn't mean to start a debate with you in the middle of HTL and Craig's discussion. 76520[/snapback] There is no discussion between myself and Craig. By the way, I haven't the foggiest what you were on about earlier, and it's not because I didn't read what you posted, it's just beyond my feeble intellect. I have no idea why Chayton is accusing me of 'selective reading'.

You followed up this childish rubbish with a number of petty snipes in later posts. Does you no credit, Craig. Show me the post(s) where you think I was reading selectively, show me the posts that prompted the childish comments you've been aiming toward me. Anyway, not that I expect you to believe me....I've never said that FS is a great Chairman, so it would seem it is you who reads selectively. Not very long ago I placed a post on the board pointing out how I thought FS is prone to error because he appoints managers for one character trait only, and that this is a reason why we fail. I've also posted a number of times that I think he knows fcuk all about football. Ignored by you, and then the idea I think FS is great is spread around as lies by you in your haste to portray me as believiing something I've never believed in. Good show, mate. As I say, this kind of stuff does you no credit at all. Doh! Seems to me that you make your mind up what someone is posting before you've even read the post. BTW It's not rocket science to come up with the idea a club needs to be properly run from top to bottom to be successful. I think everyone would agree with that, so again, you appear to have made up your mind before you even read a post. I'd be surprised if you were able to find any post from me anywhere that would indicate I think a shit club could be successful.

What's that supposed to mean? Just answer a question, it's pretty easy. Who identifies the players to bring to the club in order to build a team? 76120[/snapback] The scouts! OK, pedency apart, it's Souness, but then I've never disputed that! Answer this simple one then in return: Who has the final say-so by slapping his signature on the cheque and has the power to say "not on your life am I buying that piece of shit!"? 76361[/snapback] This is something a manager would say should a club have a Chairman who is involved in team affairs when he shouldn't be. 76367[/snapback] 76370[/snapback] The final refuge. Obviously you believe a Chairman should be saying those words to a manager when in disagreement with the manager's decision on a team affairs issue, which means you are in favour of interference in team affairs by a Chairman. Wouldn't mind you telling me how any Chairman is supposed to convince ANY manager to join any club under those circumstances.

Certain people won't have a wrong word said about Shepherd - never said it was you.... 76362[/snapback] Struggling, I see.