Howaythelads

Here we go. When will you grow up, man? Have you any idea how stupid that sounds? Showing a forum thread to your missus? Bloody hell, my missus would wonder what she was married to if I involved her in anything to do with this forum. You must have a really sad life, Chayton. I feel sorry for you, man. I really do. No doubt you'll claim you made this up now you realise what a tosser it makes you seem. BTW I'm not in my 50's.

1. You were lying about something you claimed I'd said. 2. You can produce as many links as you like, the fact remains, for those of using listening to the radio on the day Luque signed the words of Souness were pretty clear. If he's contradicted himself with other media that is hardly my fault, or is that what you're claiming. 3. About arguing your point, you've only just now provided links to support your arguments, prior to that you had produced nothing other than your own written word. Therefore, when I made the comment about you not arguing your point it was perfectly valid. Glad to see you've taken that on board and done something about it. That's commendable. 4. I think you'll have a long search for where I said quotes are for idiots. It's possible I have forgotten of course, but the only recollection I have of discussing quotes is as I described in my last post. I think the discussion was with Alex, who always asks for quotes when he is unable to debate an issue. Like you. 5. What you describe as " your issue " is actually a non-issue, not that I expect you'll believe me like. I do not know for a fact that Luque is anything other than what I heard Souness claim Luque to be when he talked about the signing on the radio. I've never said otherwise, apart from perhaps making an understandable assumption that a left sided player to replace Robert ( as Souness indicated in his interveiw ) is not the same thing as a out and out striker. Try to understand that I don't have the same access to hundreds of Deportivo fans as you claim to have. I can only go by what Souness has said. If I've made an error by believing him, then fair enough. 6. You haven't proved a thing. What you still ignore is the fact that when given an option, Souness selected Luque where everybody thought he would, on the left. Time will tell.

To be fair, that is the only fucking thing people are going on about. It's incredible that some can read anything else into what is being posted about this.

Twat of the year? 60872[/snapback] Good post. I agree.

58922[/snapback] Which retard said he was signed as anything but a striker anyway? 59436[/snapback] PM heading straight your way. 59444[/snapback] My trip to 'outside the ground' is being arranged as I type! 59446[/snapback] Who said on the day Luque was signed that we now have a 'proper' player offering a threat down the left flank? The clue for you if you don't get it is the word proper. When we did see him for Newcastle he was selected on the left as a replcement for Robert, was he not? I franky couldn't give a shite where he used to play for Deportivo, he was signed by Souness as a replacement for Robert. Read that carefully, just so you understand what I'm saying. I don't have 150 family friends who have been watching him play as a striker for the last 1,000,000 years for Deportivo. Even if I did have, it wouldn't matter. Souness signed him to replace Robert, he said so at the time and that is what I've been saying. Take your time digesting that. It's not difficult, but you'll get it if you try. 59798[/snapback] See, you've made that up (and by the way you always refuse to provide quotes shows it). Here is what Souness actually said. Also... Now you may claim that quotes are only for idiots (I believe they were your words), but I put it to you to prove that Souness has EVER said Luque is a replacement for Robert. FFS man, back down for once in your life and admit you're wrong. 59804[/snapback] 2 points, and they're important as you're lying again. I've NEVER said quotes are for idiots, doubt you'll apologise for getting that one wrong. We talked about quotes when it was pointed out that many people had previously been posting that Jenas would be a great player ( I think ). Someone denied that, and asked for quotes to substantiate that people had taken that position. I pointed out that the notion of searching for quotes to back that up was bollocks, most of us know that people were saying those things. That's what I was saying about quotes. Second, you posting what you call a quote is supposed to make believe this was a quote? Is that what you're saying? I don't think so. You can write whatever you like, mate, that doesn't make it a quote other than a quote from you. That doesn't prove anything to me, mate. What I HEARD on the radio is what I've posted in other threads, the bit about a threat down the left from a proper player. It was said without any attempt to hide the dig at Robert, and to most people it will mean he was signing a player to replace Robert. If you want me to somehow pluck those past words from the radio into a written quote for you, it's fair to say I'll be struggling to do that. The reasons are obvious, but no doubt won't be to you. If Souness was signing a player who was a striker, but for some reason he used the occasion to childishly have a dig at Robert, well that is another issue and I have no control over being misled by the manager. As I don't have the millions of links to Deportivo you claim you have, I wouldn't know. I'm going by what the manager said on the day he signed the player. We'll see where he uses Luque over the long term, won't we? He may well start up front with players out, but the test will be where Souness selects Luque when he has an option. So far, when he has had an option, he has selected him on the left, has he not? You can answer that one if you like. Where Souness eventually, consistently uses Luque will be the proof, will it not? If Souness uses Luque most of the time as a striker when he other options, I will be ok about admitting I was wrong. I very much doubt we'll see you admitting to be wrong in the event Luque is consitently used on the left. By the way, I always admit when I'm wrong. It's what marks me out from people like you, I have integrity. Bernard turned out better than I thought. Boumsong is turning out worse than I thought. Parker looks better than I thought, Bowyer is better than I thought and even Faye looked ok at first. I was even happy enough on the day we appointed Souness, and I said so. Is that lot good enough for you to acknowledge I admit when I'm wrong? Fuck knows where you and others get the idea I won't admit I'm wrong. Think about it before you throw out the pathetic accusations you're so fond of when you can't argue a point properly.

Yeah, I'd just hate to see him actually win something. Desperate to see him fail, me 60006[/snapback] Not being funny like, but the manager is judged against the results and performances over a certain time period versus expectations. The expectations are set by what the club wants to achieve, and they base that on how much financial backing has been given to the manager and the state when he started. If the Board is happy with a bottom half finish and a cup win, then Souness is successfull. I'd be disappointed however if this was the aim of the Board, as it's a fairly low aim, the League being the proper guide to a teams quality. While everybody wants us to win a cup, the dire performances over a long period of time, and a bottom half position in the table to me indicate the manager has failed. It doesn't make Souness a success to win the League Cup.

Thought I'd mention that your hero reckons he's a 20 goal a season man and can replace Alan Shearer.

Are you one of those blokes who says we are getting better results without Bellamy and Robert, especially Bellamy ? 60491[/snapback] Hmmmm difficult question that one, like. Tell you what, let's watch a year's worth of football and take a look at the league table. Hmmm, I'm not sure. We have better players, you know.

Jesus Wept. I didn't hear him say that. I heard him say this..... He also said... Now, let's see the quote where Souness says he's a proper player and a replacement for Robert. Now, for the last time.... LUQUE IS A STRIKER. HE'S PLAYED ON THE LEFT WING ONCE IN HIS ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL CAREER. AS I'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, IF SOUNESS PLAYS HIM ON THE LEFT WING THEN HE'S MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE. tbh 60484[/snapback] Hmmm. Getting a little bit stressed out there, mate. Here's the quote......... Jesus didn't actually exist, you know. Figment of people's imagination, leading to probably the best selling novel of all time. Just thought I'd mention it.

We know you aren't Souness, mate. Gemmill is Souness.

Westendlad 60002[/snapback] I am he. Or, rather, I was he 60459[/snapback] Bollocks. I was Westendlad 60472[/snapback] no you aren't, I'm westendlad 60478[/snapback] I'm Neil actually. Nob

Still waiting for Gol to explain what Souness was on about when he said he'd signed a proper player in Luque, and that we would now have a threat down the left flank.

Bloody hell. I agree. How come you didn't find some way to slag Robert off in that post, mate? We know he's gone but we know you're still obsessed like. 60474[/snapback] Didnt Robert start this thread? 60475[/snapback] Dunno. I haven't read it.

Bloody hell. I agree. How come you didn't find some way to slag Robert off in that post, mate? We know he's gone but we know you're still obsessed like.

Westendlad 60002[/snapback] I am he. Or, rather, I was he 60459[/snapback] Bollocks. I was Westendlad

Care to explain exactly what you're on about Chayton? I'll acknowledge whatever I know to be right. As it is, I really don't have a clue what you're talking about, the first reference to Neil I noticed was this fucking idiot samantha calling me Neil. This may of course mean that I missed something in the thread, what a fucking disagrace that would be, eh! I bet that's never happened before to anybody, like. I don't deliberately go around posting a load of lies, I do have integrity, mate. You ought to know that, of course, but what the hell. Your personal and idiotic one-liners are what I've come to expect. 60451[/snapback] Fair do's I've been a fucking idiot. 60455[/snapback] I agree.

Care to explain exactly what you're on about Chayton? I'll acknowledge whatever I know to be right. As it is, I really don't have a clue what you're talking about, the first reference to Neil I noticed was this fucking idiot samantha calling me Neil. This may of course mean that I missed something in the thread, what a fucking disagrace that would be, eh! I bet that's never happened before to anybody, like. I don't deliberately go around posting a load of lies, I do have integrity, mate. You ought to know that, of course, but what the hell. Your personal and idiotic one-liners are what I've come to expect. 60451[/snapback] Chayton?? Who's Chayton?? You asked the questions previously in the thread and they were answered for you. Now either you couldn't be arsed to check back and read them, or you simply chose to ignore them. Eitherway you came back with unjustified attitude asking the same question again hence why people got the hump. You may have missed something, but most people who do acknowledge that they have missed it rather that get arsey and demand that their question is answered. There was nowt personal about the one-liner. Any other poster would have got the same response. 60457[/snapback] Chayton, mate. Total bollocks as you well know. I asked the question the first time and then continued reading the thread. I asked the question a second time BEFORE I'd read any reply indicating who samantha was. I've already told you this, but for your own strange reasons you've chosen to ignore it.

Thank you, Neil. 59066[/snapback] Eh? You lost me there, samantha. 59071[/snapback] You need to read the previous posts. Something which you never bothered doing last night either! We were speculating about the identity of the elusive 'Neil'. You and sammynb both referred to him. But we dont know who he is? 59074[/snapback] Been away, so it's catch up time. 2 things. I read the previous posts, but I don't read every thread, I have other things to do, seemingly you don't. That means you should get a life. The other thing is that I had no idea you were speculating about the identity of Neil, I also didn't make any reference to him. I also don't think he'd be hard to spot anyway, given his obsession with nobs. Perhaps you aren't as bright as you like to believe. 59786[/snapback] That made no sense whatsoever mate. Not that I'd recommend reading back through all of this now but I'm pretty sure reference to 'Neil' and 'Sammy' both appear and are explained in this thread! Which disproves your remarks. As for the insults, I'm absolutely fucking devo'd Are you gonna offer me out next then, keyboard warrior? 59841[/snapback] Been away (again), so it's catch up time (again) As usual, total shite from samantha. 60449[/snapback] Shit response tbh. 60450[/snapback] 60452[/snapback] When all else fails theres always the smilies eh? 60453[/snapback]

Thank you, Neil. 59066[/snapback] Eh? You lost me there, samantha. 59071[/snapback] You need to read the previous posts. Something which you never bothered doing last night either! We were speculating about the identity of the elusive 'Neil'. You and sammynb both referred to him. But we dont know who he is? 59074[/snapback] Been away, so it's catch up time. 2 things. I read the previous posts, but I don't read every thread, I have other things to do, seemingly you don't. That means you should get a life. The other thing is that I had no idea you were speculating about the identity of Neil, I also didn't make any reference to him. I also don't think he'd be hard to spot anyway, given his obsession with nobs. Perhaps you aren't as bright as you like to believe. 59786[/snapback] That made no sense whatsoever mate. Not that I'd recommend reading back through all of this now but I'm pretty sure reference to 'Neil' and 'Sammy' both appear and are explained in this thread! Which disproves your remarks. As for the insults, I'm absolutely fucking devo'd Are you gonna offer me out next then, keyboard warrior? 59841[/snapback] Been away (again), so it's catch up time (again) As usual, total shite from samantha. 60449[/snapback] Shit response tbh. 60450[/snapback]

Care to explain exactly what you're on about Chayton? I'll acknowledge whatever I know to be right. As it is, I really don't have a clue what you're talking about, the first reference to Neil I noticed was this fucking idiot samantha calling me Neil. This may of course mean that I missed something in the thread, what a fucking disagrace that would be, eh! I bet that's never happened before to anybody, like. I don't deliberately go around posting a load of lies, I do have integrity, mate. You ought to know that, of course, but what the hell. Your personal and idiotic one-liners are what I've come to expect.

Thank you, Neil. 59066[/snapback] Eh? You lost me there, samantha. 59071[/snapback] You need to read the previous posts. Something which you never bothered doing last night either! We were speculating about the identity of the elusive 'Neil'. You and sammynb both referred to him. But we dont know who he is? 59074[/snapback] Been away, so it's catch up time. 2 things. I read the previous posts, but I don't read every thread, I have other things to do, seemingly you don't. That means you should get a life. The other thing is that I had no idea you were speculating about the identity of Neil, I also didn't make any reference to him. I also don't think he'd be hard to spot anyway, given his obsession with nobs. Perhaps you aren't as bright as you like to believe. 59786[/snapback] That made no sense whatsoever mate. Not that I'd recommend reading back through all of this now but I'm pretty sure reference to 'Neil' and 'Sammy' both appear and are explained in this thread! Which disproves your remarks. As for the insults, I'm absolutely fucking devo'd Are you gonna offer me out next then, keyboard warrior? 59841[/snapback] Been away (again), so it's catch up time (again) As usual, total shite from samantha.

58922[/snapback] Which retard said he was signed as anything but a striker anyway? 59436[/snapback] PM heading straight your way. 59444[/snapback] My trip to 'outside the ground' is being arranged as I type! 59446[/snapback] Isn't that the only place you get to?

58922[/snapback] Which retard said he was signed as anything but a striker anyway? 59436[/snapback] PM heading straight your way. 59444[/snapback] My trip to 'outside the ground' is being arranged as I type! 59446[/snapback] Who said on the day Luque was signed that we now have a 'proper' player offering a threat down the left flank? The clue for you if you don't get it is the word proper. When we did see him for Newcastle he was selected on the left as a replcement for Robert, was he not? I franky couldn't give a shite where he used to play for Deportivo, he was signed by Souness as a replacement for Robert. Read that carefully, just so you understand what I'm saying. I don't have 150 family friends who have been watching him play as a striker for the last 1,000,000 years for Deportivo. Even if I did have, it wouldn't matter. Souness signed him to replace Robert, he said so at the time and that is what I've been saying. Take your time digesting that. It's not difficult, but you'll get it if you try.

I'd like to see an answer to this.