renegade tootsie 0 Posted January 14, 2009 You had better tall that to Tipster101 then - he reckons "ab" revealed tommorrow. At least one of you is full of sh*t.[quote user="Jakesacanary"]Unfortunately he WILL NOT be unveiled tomorrow.............as the board are interviewing 2 perspective candidates p.m tomorrow[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellowfuture 71 Posted January 14, 2009 Who are they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CiderkiddCanary 0 Posted January 14, 2009 [quote user="renegade tootsie"]You had better tall that to Tipster101 then - he reckons "ab" revealed tommorrow. At least one of you is full of sh*t.[quote user="Jakesacanary"]Unfortunately he WILL NOT be unveiled tomorrow.............as the board are interviewing 2 perspective candidates p.m tomorrow[/quote][/quote]No, he said he could be unveiled tomorrow if some minute details get sorted out.Get your facts straight mate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
renegade tootsie 0 Posted January 14, 2009 FFS - the only relevant fact is that he reckons its boothroyd ana he *might* be revealed tommorrow, and this jake guy reckons we have two interviews tommorrow.Do you find it in your brain to agree that one of those situations is simply untrue and therefore one is bullsh*t?[quote user="Ciderkidd"][quote user="renegade tootsie"]You had better tall that to Tipster101 then - he reckons "ab" revealed tommorrow. At least one of you is full of sh*t.[quote user="Jakesacanary"]Unfortunately he WILL NOT be unveiled tomorrow.............as the board are interviewing 2 perspective candidates p.m tomorrow[/quote][/quote]No, he said he could be unveiled tomorrow if some minute details get sorted out.Get your facts straight mate.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CiderkiddCanary 0 Posted January 14, 2009 [quote user="renegade tootsie"]FFS - the only relevant fact is that he reckons its boothroyd and he *might* be revealed tommorrow, and this jake guy reckons we have two interviews tommorrow.Do you find it in your brain to agree that one of those situations is simply untrue and therefore one is bullsh*t?[quote user="Ciderkidd"][quote user="renegade tootsie"]You had better tall that to Tipster101 then - he reckons "ab" revealed tommorrow. At least one of you is full of sh*t.[quote user="Jakesacanary"]Unfortunately he WILL NOT be unveiled tomorrow.............as the board are interviewing 2 perspective candidates p.m tomorrow[/quote][/quote]No, he said he could be unveiled tomorrow if some minute details get sorted out.Get your facts straight mate.[/quote][/quote]I''m not going to answer your question as I am not prepared to stoop to the level which you have showed on the message board these last couple of days. However I am going to say that the highlighted part of the quote was completely unnecessary and unneeded.Answer me this - does that question help the thread or people make opinions?I await your answer with baited breath. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
. 0 Posted January 14, 2009 [quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"] [quote user="renegade tootsie"]I have it on good authority......[/quote]A retrograde step and a potential disaster. He is damaged goods coming off the back of a failure at Watford. He got lucky like Worthington and got seen for what he was over time.Lucky us if Smith does it yet again.[/quote]Who do you suggest then? Or is this just another one of those series of posts where you don''t bother telling us so that you can sit safely and slate whoever it ends up being? After all, how many managers who have had long stints of success would come here? None of the realistic targets will have been winning titles here and there, otherwise why would they come? Boothroyd has to be among the best on the potential list (so long as hoofball takes a back seat) - he knows the club and its set up well, had reasonable success at Watford (promotion and play-offs in 3 or so seasons is hardly an abject failure) and would be a popular appointment - something that I see as being important this time. I''d probably go with Curbishley in preference but that is probably unrealistic. [/quote]Can''t find it in yourself to accept that I have been mostly right so far? Are we then going to start including the string of journeymen I flagged up as "dismal" ? Guesswork was it eh?I can''t help it if I have more insight into things than you.... and if something genuinely positive came along I can assure you I would have no problem supporting it. I believe I was openly generous towards Huckerby and Dublin.... apart from which has there been anything else to cheer for a long long time?You stick to your thinking and I''ll stick to mine. I prefer realism to wide-eyed reactionism. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
renegade tootsie 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Brilliant - avoid my question by asking one - are you Neil Doncaster.I am sorry if I have made you cry into your horlicks. What a terrrible boy I have been these past couple of days. Now run along and get to bed, it will all be over soon and you can get back to discussing if "Semmie" is an appropriate nickname for a man to have.Of course it is relevant to the message board - someone is telling porkies.[quote user="Ciderkidd"][quote user="renegade tootsie"]FFS - the only relevant fact is that he reckons its boothroyd and he *might* be revealed tommorrow, and this jake guy reckons we have two interviews tommorrow.Do you find it in your brain to agree that one of those situations is simply untrue and therefore one is bullsh*t?[quote user="Ciderkidd"][quote user="renegade tootsie"]You had better tall that to Tipster101 then - he reckons "ab" revealed tommorrow. At least one of you is full of sh*t.[quote user="Jakesacanary"]Unfortunately he WILL NOT be unveiled tomorrow.............as the board are interviewing 2 perspective candidates p.m tomorrow[/quote][/quote]No, he said he could be unveiled tomorrow if some minute details get sorted out.Get your facts straight mate.[/quote][/quote]I''m not going to answer your question as I am not prepared to stoop to the level which you have showed on the message board these last couple of days. However I am going to say that the highlighted part of the quote was completely unnecessary and unneeded.Answer me this - does that question help the thread or people make opinions?I await your answer with baited breath.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,659 Posted January 14, 2009 [quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"] [quote user="renegade tootsie"]I have it on good authority......[/quote]A retrograde step and a potential disaster. He is damaged goods coming off the back of a failure at Watford. He got lucky like Worthington and got seen for what he was over time.Lucky us if Smith does it yet again.[/quote]Who do you suggest then? Or is this just another one of those series of posts where you don''t bother telling us so that you can sit safely and slate whoever it ends up being? After all, how many managers who have had long stints of success would come here? None of the realistic targets will have been winning titles here and there, otherwise why would they come? Boothroyd has to be among the best on the potential list (so long as hoofball takes a back seat) - he knows the club and its set up well, had reasonable success at Watford (promotion and play-offs in 3 or so seasons is hardly an abject failure) and would be a popular appointment - something that I see as being important this time. I''d probably go with Curbishley in preference but that is probably unrealistic. [/quote]Can''t find it in yourself to accept that I have been mostly right so far? Are we then going to start including the string of journeymen I flagged up as "dismal" ? Guesswork was it eh?I can''t help it if I have more insight into things than you.... and if something genuinely positive came along I can assure you I would have no problem supporting it. I believe I was openly generous towards Huckerby and Dublin.... apart from which has there been anything else to cheer for a long long time?You stick to your thinking and I''ll stick to mine. I prefer realism to wide-eyed reactionism.[/quote]I didn''t expect an answer to my question, so can hardly be surprised at getting just the usual evasive answer. Thanks for being as arrogant and ignorant as I thought you would be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
