Reply With QuoteHe's got 2 very big months to negotiate with a sub standard midfield and defence he can't replace until January, any side with Eric Dire in defence has issuesOriginally Posted by teesred
|
|
|
Rowdy Yates
Agree - it just aint long enough tees. And that's a good thing. Levy has probably promised a war chest too - he is known to promise one thing to players and then forget it and stick only to what is in the contract.
I guess if after 18 months there is a clear upturn he will get more time, but trying to make things work in that time frame is hugely risky..
First Team
He's got 2 very big months to negotiate with a sub standard midfield and defence he can't replace until January, any side with Eric Dire in defence has issues
"If Everton were playing at the bottom of my garden, i'd close the curtains”
First Team
Yes the one where we got an early, soft penalty. The penalty I thought was extremely fortunate and probably shouldn't have had. But from which point onwards we outclassed them, made them look bereft of ideas and, in the end, put them out of their misery.
I didn't bother to look at the 'statistics' because they were irrelevant and, as a fan, I didn't feel much in the way of nerves after our fortunate start.
I will gladly take back the misrepresentation of your views about 'on another day' we would have beaten United. What you said, in a few different ways was that they were not as bad as everyone was making out and we were not as good. You then muddied the waters with your usual fears about how our season is about to fall apart due to unpreparedness in midfield and they have the capacity to do well. So the on another day was an insinuation I read into what you said. One million apologies for this gross misrepresentation.
The other one isn't a lie and, as 19x said, your quotes were there for all to see and they were actually made more than once. I asked you the question direct. You answered it direct. You had your reasons - they weren't even bad reasons, they were good reasons. there was reason to believe that a club in the premiership could be better run than ours and that it was Spurs (I was tempted to agree with you). So you should have no shame in having said those things.
The reason this is a problem for you is that admitting no clubs are better run than ours means we are a well run club, which you are loathe to do.
And guess what, by now implying you've always thought we were better run than Spurs, you imply again that we are a well run club.
You lose both ways!
First Team
This interesting admission came a fews years later. In the original conversation (where I challenged your constant assertions that we were being badly run), I specifically asked it with the omission of the sugar daddy clubs. If we don't have a sugar daddy, club stewardship isn't the same thing.
And it still isn't the same thing. When you now say 'I want a sugar daddy', what you seem to be saying is 'I want our club to be able to spend lots of money'. That's a different problem. If you want a sugar daddy, that's your choice and if you want to convince someone to join you in accepting the ethical implications you are free to do so. But our debate has been centred on your clam that FSG are mishandling the club, which is why the oil rich clubs were excluded.
Rowdy Yates
You are arguing once more against your own fragile memory.
Great that you concede on the point about the United game - but then you would have to... as we can all go back can see how you twist what people have said to invent an argument. In effect, if someone doesn't immediately stamp on your bogus regurgitation of what they have said you bring it into folklore.
Put up or shut up.
Present what you claim I said. If you can i will eat the humble pie.
Go on reveal to us all, who you really are.
Moderator
@Steveo - you would welcome a "sugar daddy" owner at Liverpool?
"...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"
Rowdy Yates
You have said "'I want a sugar daddy'" not me..
I said I prefer the billionaire Roman over the Billionaire Henry.. One is football obsessed the other doesn't know how to say defence properly despite English being his first language.
you do see how this works...right?
Rowdy Yates
Like Clock work. hahaaa
Nice one vin.. And you are a mod.. ? Makes sense
Moderator
I don't get what you mean?
"...and my inch is like a freight train, so I only use it in self defence"
First Team
By the way, regarding United, what you said was
they didn't play as bad as we all think
we didn't play as well as we all think
Fernandes almost scored and the game would have been different if that had happened
My inference was really not that far off. You doth protest too much. I have no problems apologising because the offence was not very great - it was barely an offence as you more or less implied it. I don't mind letting it go. I have no axe to grind in the way I do with the other argument.
The other one is you being slippery. I do not have a tendency to misrepresent you. You do have a tendency to slippery arguments, including equivication on words (like when you said 'they should have' supposedly didn't not imply a criticism of them because of some kind of northern vernacular)
In this case you did say it. It's no big deal. I feel no need to trawl through your posts looking for it. I know it's true. Everything you have said since then, including on this very thread (!), supports the fact that you would have said it. 19x remembers it. That'll do me.
Also, you're still slipping around with the Abramovic change of tact and focusing on my supposed lies rather than on the point.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks