BG

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

You're slipping: you're normally here quicker if DH is in an argument. Enjoyed reading your posts in the archived thread on H and G. DH even tried to mis-characterise your reaction to them which was amusing. It's really touching the way you stick up for each other. It's like you both think that standing on an internet forum is something really important.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Glorious day for you seeing your take on G and H. f***ing clown.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

I see you're reacting with calm reason to being challenged again, just as predicted. I guess that's where you're at now: making up stuff about Hodgson stories you remember from the '70s to win petty internet arguments, exaggerrating/inventing an ITK status to make yourself feel important and then hollering and insulting if challenged. Throwing around insults once your dismal powers or reasoning are exhausted is all pretty predictable. Indeed, as I recall only a month or two ago even one of your offline mates was moved to post here to try and get you to recognise the failings in your own behaviour on here but not even that gave you pause for thought.

Quite the reverse DH - sorry to disappoint you. I just find your post's sometimes lapse into opinion dressed up as fact which I find rather irritating and that you seem to react rather poorly to being challenged. I think many people are aware of how PR firms (attempt to) influence forums and online opinion more generally. Those who've worked around this area will also have some idea of how little of what's actually going on PR agencies' online pawns are actually told and that what they are actually told may be econmical with the actualité. Again, I find the notion that you or anyone else claiming detailed and solid well sourced knowledge of any takeover bid extremely unlikely.

I am thinking of buying it for the first time as the only decent place locally has just canned it. I can't stand them though: is it possible to have crowd noise only?

I certainly agree on the witch hunt point. Indeed I found that really quite bizarre that people thought that he was some sort of G and H stooge just because he'd published a few stories about the candidate who appeared then (and maybe still now) to be the leading candidate. People did the same with articles published by the FT. On the ITK point I'm generally very skeptical indeed about them as a rule. I think to a degree people take most of what they say far too uncritically: for example, Elisha (one of the better ones) announced last week that Poulsen was done (hardly news we were progressing that) and that Crouch was done (or words to that effect) which seems at bit optimistic and simplistic, at best. Yet many saw the Crouch signing as a fact on the basis of that post. Most of the time IMO, ITKs make out they know far, far more than they actually do (there are a few exceptions to this like the guy who seems to know Broughton's niece and doesn't dress things up at all). On the takeover front it seems to me relatively implausible that anyone regularly posting on an internet forum has really substantive knowledge (out of interest did anyone predict G and H were about to scupper DIC before it was in the public domain?) of what is going on.

Kind of pathetic, your last two responses. But then from a man who makes things up to win internet arguments, even stuff demonstrably false, it's hardly surprising. Sad to see from a "full grown man" as you call yourself.

Definitely agree. On Huang I found it interesting on here that the reaction of many was to leap to his defence as soon as a few journalists started digging round him and putting him under a bit of scrutiny. All because he's put out a few press releases about what he's going to do. Kirdi I didn't/don't think is that serious but I suppose only the board really know.

About as accurate as your memory of news stories about Hodgson in the 1970s.

This content is not viewable to guests.

How's Ant doing though now?

I see you've gone off the deep end because of a light hearted comment about the first line of your post. Perhaps I should have used an emoticon there. I've not actually agreed with you about 'freshening up' as is clear from reading my post. The point of the Valencia example is that it is a fact. It actually happened. Your view of the slide being irreversible and things being bound to be inevitably worse without managerial change is is your opinion, as Bromage correctly pointed out, which you try to assert as fact. You're now trying the same thing on the relative states of the dressing rooms. On RH you've actually post rationalised to an amusing level by constantly talking up his managerial record including the invention/confabulation that you remember that wherever he went as far back as the '70s news would filter back of minor miracles being accomplished by RH and constantly talking up any player we're linked with. I've never felt that RH was a puppet appointment, more that he was attractive to the current board, and this is something which Broughton basically said, in part because at interview he talked up improving the existing players rather than buying new ones. On Purslow I've never seen him as the bogey man that some do though I think that the value of the squad (ie the playing assets) has been diminished on his watch. The fact that Torres hasn't been sold doesn't mean that there isn't a degree of asset stripping going on. Indeed if Masch goes for 25m unless about 20m goes on new players the value of the squad will have been diminished again. On working conditions RH is actually working under substantially different conditions to RB (excepting the last month of his tenure) as it's become blindingly obvious that the owners - who RB dealt with because they held sway on the board - now have considerably less sway and MB, CP and IA are now essentially running the show. The money may not have changed but the dynamics around the club (irrespective of the manager) have clearly changed a lot. That said I think RH has done fairly well thus far.

TBH thought Cole made a f***ing stupid tackle where there was no need to dive in like that. Was a s*** tackle and only question in my mind was whether he was going to get away with a yellow. That said I look forward to seeing Rooney go for some like that.