John Obi Mikel thread

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

United were "paid off" because, basically, Chelsea did not need the hassle of going thru a legal case. Simple as and full-stop. Let's see how Manu do with the extra 6M they have gained into their transfer coffers (if the money even goes that far).

Actually its worth £10 million to United this year as Sprinkles said above As well as the £6 million this year to united Chelsea have kindly paid Uniteds initial transfer fee of£4 million to Lyn and then theres anoth another £6 Million to United Next Year . Thats €16 million in Total and Nett profit of £12 million to United for a player that never Kicked a ball in anger for United. Those figures prove he was a United Player as United and their fans have said all along. Still don't let the truth get in the way of your Anti United illogical bleetings.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

well at least all the speculation is now over, I hope JOM turns out to be worth all the effort, if he is as big a talent as he's been made out to be I look forward to watching him play for the blues. It's a shame that we had to give Man USA any money at all, it seems that giving them a few quid tarnishes Chelsea somewhat and makes the entire transfer aga even more dubious than it has been to date.

I hope Utd. use the money well, it would be nice to have some competition in the league next season.

He's a fantastic player, worth every penny.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Actually its worth €10 million to United this year as Sprinkles said above As well as the 6 million this year to united Chelsea have kindly paid Uniteds initial transfer fee of£4 million to Lyn and then theres anoth another £6 Million to United Next Year . Thats €16 million in Total and Nett profit of €12 million to United for a player that never Kicked a ball in anger for United. Those figures prove he was a United Player as United and their fans have said all along. Still don't let the truth get in the way of your Anti United illogical bleetings.

If you are including the £4M sterling Chelsea have actually paid to Lyn, well then you are looking at €14.5M or £10MStg this year. With a further £6MStg to be paid next year. In total that will be £16MStg or €23.1982 (at todays rate).

Still, don't let your enthusiasm to try and contradict me stop you from making another idiotic post.

Some things never change muppet:rolleyes:.

./Waits for reply...tick...tock...tick

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

Some things never change muppet:rolleyes:.

./Waits for reply...tick...tock...tick

Still correcting Typos Eh. I meant Pounds sterling .

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Still correcting Typos Eh. I meant Pounds sterling .

Listen muppet. It's not my job to go cleaning up your mistakes. Call them typo's, whatever. You should think about what you are about to type before you actually type it. You used the £ mark and the € symbol in that post I have quoted. How am I, or others, to believe that you did not type what you meant? Are we some sort of filtration system for your rubbish?

We are all open to err. Some, like you, more than others. If you think your little comeback saves you some face, I would doubt it.

I would suggest you just think about what you are about to type before you actually type it. That's all.

Basically, look at your own sig, and live by it.

Chucky the tree

The Muppet wrote:

Actually its worth £10 million to United this year as Sprinkles said above As well as the £6 million this year to united Chelsea have kindly paid Uniteds initial transfer fee of£4 million to Lyn and then theres anoth another £6 Million to United Next Year . Thats €16 million in Total and Nett profit of £12 million to United for a player that never Kicked a ball in anger for United. Those figures prove he was a United Player as United and their fans have said all along. Still don't let the truth get in the way of your Anti United illogical bleetings.

Didnt JOM sign a pre-contract agreement with Manchester united? That means he was not a united player. He never signed a full contract with them.

Chelsea made the payments for united to cancel the pre-contract agreement.

Hobart

Chucky the tree wrote:

Didnt JOM sign a pre-contract agreement with Manchester united? That means he was not a united player. He never signed a full contract with them.

Chelsea made the payments for united to cancel the pre-contract agreement.

You are correct. His registration was never transfered to Manu. It is a signing from Lyn to Chelsea. Manu are just being paid off in lieu of the solicitors getting the fees imo.

iregk

The funny thing that I've noticed throught this thread and before I get flamed I'm not having a go at anyone here, but the United fans seem to be angered very much at this deal and want Chelsea investigated etc... From what I've seen and heard United seem to be the one that many are saying are in the wrong!!!

Now granted as I previously said I haven't really a clue whats going on here nor does anyone on these boards if we are being honest. That said the most serious part of this that I've heard is united pressuring him into signing for them so why do United fans want Chelsea investigated.

sprinkles

iregk wrote:

The funny thing that I've noticed throught this thread and before I get flamed I'm not having a go at anyone here, but the United fans seem to be angered very much at this deal and want Chelsea investigated etc... From what I've seen and heard United seem to be the one that many are saying are in the wrong!!!

Now granted as I previously said I haven't really a clue whats going on here nor does anyone on these boards if we are being honest. That said the most serious part of this that I've heard is united pressuring him into signing for them so why do United fans want Chelsea investigated.

perhaps because up until Chelseas aledged involvement the player was happy at having joined united. Just a guess though....

bohsman

iregk wrote:

The funny thing that I've noticed throught this thread and before I get flamed I'm not having a go at anyone here, but the United fans seem to be angered very much at this deal and want Chelsea investigated etc... From what I've seen and heard United seem to be the one that many are saying are in the wrong!!!

Now granted as I previously said I haven't really a clue whats going on here nor does anyone on these boards if we are being honest. That said the most serious part of this that I've heard is united pressuring him into signing for them so why do United fans want Chelsea investigated.

Chelsea paying United off is practically an admission of guilt.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

Well if this gem proves to be anywhere near the truth, it looks like it's you TheMonster who should imbibe himself with the facts of the case, and not me. This is very interesting indeed.

Is there a link to prove this?
Regardless of that FIFA can investigate anyone even without a complaint - it would crazy if they couldn't - 2 clubs in an illegal transaction will obviously not report each other. Take the Arsenal/Beveren case last week - who reported them? FIFA have the power to investigate this fully and should, Chelsea paying the 12 million is tantamount to admitting their guilt.

Big Nelly

iregk wrote:

The funny thing that I've noticed throught this thread and before I get flamed I'm not having a go at anyone here, but the United fans seem to be angered very much at this deal and want Chelsea investigated etc... From what I've seen and heard United seem to be the one that many are saying are in the wrong!!!

Now granted as I previously said I haven't really a clue whats going on here nor does anyone on these boards if we are being honest. That said the most serious part of this that I've heard is united pressuring him into signing for them so why do United fans want Chelsea investigated.

If Utd where wrong would thye not be the ones paying out 16 million to stop this case going to court?

iregk

Well I think in a previous post I made a good point when it came to both teams having something to hide.

TheMonster

iregk wrote:

Well I think in a previous post I made a good point when it came to both teams having something to hide.

So if Utd have something to hide why are they getting 12M and Chelsea paying their original transfer fee of 4M - I think Utd have decided that the player will never play for them and see getting 12M as good business. As I said above I don't see any reason why this can not be fully investigated and sanctions handed down if either is found to be guilty of wrongdoings.

Utd have come out of this minus a player and effectively 16M up. Only time will tell but this should buy a top class readymade midfielder rather than try and build on a 19 year old who may not make the grade. At the moment we don't need potential

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

So if Utd have something to hide why are they getting 12M and Chelsea paying their original transfer fee of 4M - I think Utd have decided that the player will never play for them and see getting 12M as good business. As I said above I don't see any reason why this can not be fully investigated and sanctions handed down if either is found to be guilty of wrongdoings.

Utd have come out of this minus a player and effectively 16M up. Only time will tell but this should buy a top class readymade midfielder rather than try and build on a 19 year old who may not make the grade. At the moment we don't need potential

Why do you think Manu are willing to accept a pay-off, while a few months ago they were claiming that JOM was a Manu player and they were calling for Chelsea to be banned from competitions? Why the swift turnaround? Shirley it would have been in Manu's interests to try and get Chelsea banned from the transfer market and get the team fined? This is why they took the time and effort to write a 9 page letter directly to FIFA and call for such action. Now they seem content to let Chelsea have this player and take a 6M pay-off. Why? Seems to me that they may have something to hide.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

Why do you think Manu are willing to accept a pay-off, while a few months ago they were claiming that JOM was a Manu player and they were calling for Chelsea to be banned from competitions? Why the swift turnaround? Shirley it would have been in Manu's interests to try and get Chelsea banned from the transfer market and get the team fined? This is why they took the time and effort to write a 9 page letter directly to FIFA and call for such action. Now they seem content to let Chelsea have this player and take a 6M pay-off. Why? Seems to me that they may have something to hide.

see my post above yours - it effectively gives them 16M to buy a ready made midfielder - which I think is more in their insterests now rather than potential The sanctions against Chelsea could all still happen if FIFA decide to investigate, all the money is is effectively Chelse buying out Utd option in the player.

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

see my post above yours - it effectively gives them 16M to buy a ready made midfielder - which I think is more in their insterests now rather than potential The sanctions against Chelsea could all still happen if FIFA decide to investigate, all the money is is effectively Chelse buying out Utd option in the player.

But, money seemed never to be an option, did it? And is really beside the point tbh.

kaisersose77

ah maybe because mikel doesn't want to play for them? If it was arsenal or liverpool in the same situation do you think they'd do anything different.......NO. He wants to play for Chelsea and he wants to be in London as he reportedly loves the nightlife there. They probably thought they could get him to change his mind be couldn't so gave up on him. I wouldnt pay any attention to that **** that someone posted before about getting him to the united training ground and he'll change his mind. If he only changed his mind a few weeks ago then any club would try to persuade him to play for them and fans would still want him. But months and months down the line.....forget about it.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

But, money seemed never to be an option, did it? And is really beside the point tbh.

?????:rolleyes:

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

?????:rolleyes:

Nice retort. It's actually of a slightly higher calibre than most of your posts on this thread.

My point is this. Since the Glazer take over we have been literally inundated here and on other discussion forums with "facts" from Manu fans about how the transfer kitty is not an issue, how AF will have as much money as he needs to spend etc...

So, therfore, it would be logical to deduce that money is not a problem. Players are. When you have a situation where the PL champions can gazzump a team which is desperate for players, it does not bode well for future signings for Manu.

Answer me this Monster. Which would you have prefered, given an option. An extra 6M in the coffers this year, or JOM playing for Manu?

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

Nice retort. It's actually of a slightly higher calibre than most of your posts on this thread.

My point is this. Since the Glazer take over we have been literally inundated here and on other discussion forums with "facts" from Manu fans about how the transfer kitty is not an issue, how AF will have as much money as he needs to spend etc...

So, therfore, it would be logical to deduce that money is not a problem. Players are. When you have a situation where the PL champions can gazzump a team which is desperate for players, it does not bode well for future signings for Manu.

Answer me this Monster. Which would you have prefered, given an option. An extra 6M in the coffers this year, or JOM playing for Manu?

Selective Facts I notice again!!! Its 6M now and UTS don't have to pay 4M. that equals 10M - the other 6M is also guaranteed. So like most transfers future amounts are also included. Very future transfers are 100% up front.

In effect Utd are 16M up and minus a player - not 4M. If that 16M can be used to buy a top class defensive midfielder I don't think United have lost out. if he turns out to be a worldbeater that will change but at the moment Utd don't need a 19Y promising player but an established international.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Just out of curiosity, if they do not want a promising 19 year old, why did they go for him ?

sprinkles

Hobart wrote:

Nice retort. It's actually of a slightly higher calibre than most of your posts on this thread.

My point is this. Since the Glazer take over we have been literally inundated here and on other discussion forums with "facts" from Manu fans about how the transfer kitty is not an issue, how AF will have as much money as he needs to spend etc...

So, therfore, it would be logical to deduce that money is not a problem. Players are. When you have a situation where the PL champions can gazzump a team which is desperate for players, it does not bode well for future signings for Manu.

Answer me this Monster. Which would you have prefered, given an option. An extra 6M in the coffers this year, or JOM playing for Manu?

If the alegations are proved to be true then Chelsea illegally gazzumped him. Wave a massive amount of cash at a young player and at his family (and possible threats) and then a club are going to find it very hard to compete. I look forward to FIFA's findings, although based on their past inquiries I hold little hope that the truth will be uncovered or if it is punished accordingly, whoever the guilty party is.

Hobart

sprinkles wrote:

If the alegations are proved to be true then Chelsea illegally gazzumped him. Wave a massive amount of cash at a young player and at his family (and possible threats) and then a club are going to find it very hard to compete. I look forward to FIFA's findings, although based on their past inquiries I hold little hope that the truth will be uncovered or if it is punished accordingly, whoever the guilty party is.

There are a number of allegations circulating at the moment. Some concern Chelsea and others concern Manu. Like I said, I just find it strange that Manu were calling for heads to roll a couple of months ago, and are now being paid off.

PHB

This thread has become silly:

United signed him, he was quite clearly happy, I don't think anybody honastly believes that he was 'coerced' or forced into joining for United.

He was then taken by ****tu and kidnapped, after which, he came out and said he wanted to sign for Chelsea.
This was ****tu's doing without a doubt.

I think Obi Mikel woulda been happy to play at either Chelsea or United tbh, but ****tu had different plans, and that's why he is now wearing a Chelsea shirt.

---

Why do United let him go for 12 million?
In other forums, and even on Sky, it has been suggested the 12 million hush money (btw, if it isn't hush money, why is it being paid in two installments?) is only part of the deal, and something else will come to light soon enough.

Ultimately United cut their losses and did pretty well in terms of cash payoff.
For the last 5 years, this guy was always always signing for Chelsea, United swooped in after Chelsea ****ed up, and then after a ****load of mess, made 12 million for that one action.

Ultimately you can't force a player to play at a club no matter how much you want to, and Fergie obviously decided it wasn't worth the hassle, and 12 million was acceptable.
Whether he is proven right or wrong is ultimately in the future.

gracehopper

kaisersose77 wrote:

ah maybe because mikel doesn't want to play for them? If it was arsenal or liverpool in the same situation do you think they'd do anything different.......NO. He wants to play for Chelsea and he wants to be in London as he reportedly loves the nightlife there. They probably thought they could get him to change his mind be couldn't so gave up on him. I wouldnt pay any attention to that **** that someone posted before about getting him to the united training ground and he'll change his mind. If he only changed his mind a few weeks ago then any club would try to persuade him to play for them and fans would still want him. But months and months down the line.....forget about it.

Some good point made here.

as a United fan i like to see players that want to wear the jersey and play in old trafford every week not players who want to play in a certain city because of the nightlife. Players like: Heinze, Rooney, Neville, Rio, in liverpool the likes of Gerrard, Carragher and in Chelsea the likes of Terry etc. You get my meaning.

United have made a lot of money on a player who signed for us and then decided he didnt want to play for us. So thats fine by me. We shouldnt be worried about Chelsea being able to beat us to the best players because as everyone knows we dont have their resources. As long as foreign players prefer the london night life and an extra 30,000 a week they'll move to chelsea before United and indeed any other non london club. United have to build from Youth as they've always done and concentrate on players that actually want to play for united because of who they are.

I dont for a minute believe JOM was forced into to signing for United. The image of the no21 jersey and a big smile springs to mind. I think Chelsea looked after him & his family financially and they had a verbal agreement that he'd sign for chelsea. The young lad signed for United and made a big mistake. The Chelski mafia paid a visit to him and his family and pressurised him into making up all the b*llsh*t that followed.

Anyway, United had a player under contract and chelsea bought him out of it. The source of the pressure on the family and the player should be identifed and punished. My moneys on Shi**u & the chelsea mafia

astrofool

But gracehopper's post makes no sense in Hobart's decline of Manu posts?!?

Tbh, I think after losing the signing of JOM, all Manu fans should stop supporting the club, as they are quite clearly not the club of old, and since Glazer has painted The Nike *Old Trafford* Stadium in the star spangled banner, this clearly shows that americans are evil, and have no place in good old blighty.

Realistically, the Utd pay off is very similar to the pay off to Arneson a year ago. I wonder if clubs have just accepted at this stage that Fifa/UEFA/FA have no interest in actually punishing clubs for underhanded dealings (as seems to be getting borne out in Serie A), and that clubs involved end up just settling it themselves monetarily. I mean, even if the FA did get involved, they would probably slap a £300,000 fine on Chelsea, decided by a tribunal. Given that football and the law don't mix well, with the way players rights are handled, clubs may end up just trying to protect themselves. In any other industry, people can be headhunted, and move with very little compensation (comparitively), in football, its just cost £30m to pay Shevchenko out of his contract with Milan (effectively).

Hobart

astrofool wrote:

But gracehopper's post makes no sense in Hobart's decline of Manu posts?!?

Where in this thread did I say Manu were in decline? Why would you put those words in my mouth? But as you have raised the subject, they are hardly in the ascedency, are they? They also do not seem to be the team of choice for world class players.

Tbh, I think after losing the signing of JOM, all Manu fans should stop supporting the club, as they are quite clearly not the club of old, and since Glazer has painted The Nike *Old Trafford* Stadium in the star spangled banner, this clearly shows that americans are evil, and have no place in good old blighty.

Oh I get it, sarcasm. Lol :rolleyes:

Realistically, the Utd pay off is very similar to the pay off to Arneson a year ago. I wonder if clubs have just accepted at this stage that Fifa/UEFA/FA have no interest in actually punishing clubs for underhanded dealings (as seems to be getting borne out in Serie A), and that clubs involved end up just settling it themselves monetarily. I mean, even if the FA did get involved, they would probably slap a £300,000 fine on Chelsea, decided by a tribunal. Given that football and the law don't mix well, with the way players rights are handled, clubs may end up just trying to protect themselves. In any other industry, people can be headhunted, and move with very little compensation (comparitively), in football, its just cost £30m to pay Shevchenko out of his contract with Milan (effectively).

The pay-off is a done deal. I'm more interested in the reasons why Manu decided to do this and not pursue their grievences with FIFA. If all it takes for a team like Chelsea is to pay Manu a pittance (in Chelsea's terms) to get what and whom they want, it does not say much for Manu's prospects in the transfer market, does it?

iregk

What I find hillarious is people hitting themselves over the head with, this happened, no this happened etc... None of us know the real truth and until we do it could either be United or Chelsea who have the biggest secrets to hide. We are all fighting with each other here on what is pure speculation and guess work.

Time to close this i feel as its going nowhere.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

Where in this thread did I say Manu were in decline? Why would you put those words in my mouth? But as you have raised the subject, they are hardly in the ascedency, are they? They also do not seem to be the team of choice for world class players.

Oh I get it, sarcasm. Lol :rolleyes:


The pay-off is a done deal. I'm more interested in the reasons why Manu decided to do this and not pursue their grievences with FIFA. If all it takes for a team like Chelsea is to pay Manu a pittance (in Chelsea's terms) to get what and whom they want, it does not say much for Manu's prospects in the transfer market, does it?

I notice you only slectively reply to threads where you can keep your pathetic argument going. Care to comment on the 6M vs 16M.

You're argument constantly changes.

PHB

If all it takes for a team like Chelsea is to pay Manu a pittance (in Chelsea's terms) to get what and whom they want, it does not say much for Manu's prospects in the transfer market, does it?

It doesn't say much for the prospects of the transfer market for everyone.
United's targets have been targetted by Chelsea, but if Chelsea want, they can do this sorta stuff (robben, Essien, Obi Mikel) to every team.

a pittance (in Chelsea's terms)

Everything is a pittance in Chelsea terms, do you realise just how rich Ambrovimich is?

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

I notice you only slectively reply to threads where you can keep your pathetic argument going. Care to comment on the 6M vs 16M.

You're argument constantly changes.

Hey, if you find my argument pathetic, you know what to do. Nobody is forcing you to read or write anything. Where does this whole 16M come from? AFAIK Manu are being paid 6M this year and 6M next. Now when I was in school, that added up to 12 not 16?

But wait, I hear you cry, did they not also save the 4M that they were going to pay Lyn. So that makes 16M we are up. The fact is that you are in profit, to the tune of 12M, not 16M. You may aswell add the xM you saved on not getting Ronhaldinho and the xM you saved on not getting Robben, to that total.

So that's about 60M you guys are up. Don't you see how pathetic your argument is now? Manu are down a player and up 12M. That's the bottom line. Factoring in the xyz from players who refused to join Manu is ridiculous.

PHB wrote:

It doesn't say much for the prospects of the transfer market for everyone.
United's targets have been targetted by Chelsea, but if Chelsea want, they can do this sorta stuff (robben, Essien, Obi Mikel) to every team.

I don't disagree with you. It just seems that Manu have been on the brunt end of this business.

As for Ambrovimic and his billions. No, I don't have an exact figure, but I have seen figures like 7 and 10Billion being bandied about. I know he made a few bob from Sibneft. I just refer to it as lots.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

Hey, if you find my argument pathetic, you know what to do. Nobody is forcing you to read or write anything. Where does this whole 16M come from? AFAIK Manu are being paid 6M this year and 6M next. Now when I was in school, that added up to 12 not 16?

But wait, I hear you cry, did they not also save the 4M that they were going to pay Lyn. So that makes 16M we are up. The fact is that you are in profit, to the tune of 12M, not 16M. You may aswell add the xM you saved on not getting Ronhaldinho and the xM you saved on not getting Robben, to that total.

So that's about 60M you guys are up. Don't you see how pathetic your argument is now? Manu are down a player and up 12M. That's the bottom line. Factoring in the xyz from players who refused to join Manu is ridiculous.

I don't disagree with you. It just seems that Manu have been on the brunt end of this business.

As for Ambrovimic and his billions. No, I don't have an exact figure, but I have seen figures like 7 and 10Billion being bandied about. I know he made a few bob from Sibneft. I just refer to it as lots.

FACT - Utd have 16M more to spend now than if Obi Mikel had signed for them -Can you not see that? That is my point. Yes that is 12M in actual money but that is not what I am saying.

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

You may aswell add the xM you saved on not getting Ronhaldinho and the xM you saved on not getting Robben, to that total.

.

I though you never heard of United being after Robben, out of the county at the time was the excuse if I remember correctly.:p

Give up the pathetic argument, you are making a fool of yourself yet again.

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

FACT - Utd have 16M more to spend now than if Obi Mikel had signed for them -Can you not see that? That is my point. Yes that is 12M in actual money but that is not what I am saying.

I see what you are saying allright. So you admit that United are up 12M in actual money. Good.

The Muppet wrote:

I though you never heard of United being after Robben, out of the county at the time was the excuse if I remember correctly.

.

That's right muppet, I was out of the country. But, as you have demonstrated, I have since become aware of the fact that something that did not happen actually in-fact, did not happen.

The Muppet wrote:

Give up the pathetic argument, you are making a fool of yourself yet again

Now now thomas, lets not let this descend into a personal argument again. Your lucky to be allowed to post on this site at all. You know this and so do I.

Why don't you stop the personal insult stuff and point out where I am making a fool of myself? Well..why not? If you want to go around dragging up old threads, there are one or two beauts I could link too. Remember Brazil by any chance? Does Mark Bosnich ring any bells?

Or if you want we can continue this childish argument of yours over in the Thunderdome.

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

That's right muppet, I was out of the country. But, as you have demonstrated, I have since become aware of the fact that something that did not happen actually in-fact, did not happen..

On the moon were you ?;)

Hobart wrote:

Now now thomas, lets not let this descend into a personal argument again. Your lucky to be allowed to post on this site at all. You know this and so do I.

Why don't you stop the personal insult stuff and point out where I am making a fool of myself? Well..why not? If you want to go around dragging up old threads, there are one or two beauts I could link too. Remember Brazil by any chance? Does Mark Bosnich ring any bells?

Or if you want we can continue this childish argument of yours over in the Thunderdome.

LOL now now Hanibal are you not a bit long in the tooth for the Thunderdome. If you don't mind I'll pass on that invitation as calling names on the Internet does nothing for me.

TheMonster

Hobart wrote:

I see what you are saying allright. So you admit that United are up 12M in actual money. Good.

I have always said they had 16M more to spend - you just insisted on twsiting it

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

On the moon were you ?;)

No. Don't be silly now. It's really none of your business where I was tbh. Suffice to say I was not in this hemisphere.

LOL now now Hanibal are you not a bit long in the tooth for the Thunderdome. If you don't mind I'll pass on that invitation as calling names on the Internet does nothing for me.

Do you actually see how contradictory your post is? You say that calling people names on the internet does nothing for you, and in the same post, you call me Hanibal? What exactly is your problem here? Would you just give it up FFS, it's childish beyond belief.

Hobart

TheMonster wrote:

I have always said they had 16M more to spend - you just insisted on twsiting it

Where did I twist it?

The Muppet

Hobart wrote:

No. Don't be silly now. It's really none of your business where I was tbh. Suffice to say I was not in this hemisphere.

Is there no internet or newspapers in the southern hemisphere or had you just no interest in football ?

PHB

United never actually paid Lyn the money, as the money was only to be paid once the transfer occured, but United never actually gave Lyn money.

fade2black

This is incredibly boring.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

Is there no internet or newspapers in the southern hemisphere or had you just no interest in football ?

What are you yakking on about? Have you lost the ability to read? I have answered your question (hint look up 3-4 posts). If you think your childish attempts to flame-bait me are going to work, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaken thomas. Do yourself a favour and quit. My travel arrangments are really none of your concern.

KdjaCL

Hobart shockingly banned calling muppets posts idiotic and yakking on abo0ut typos and then having the nerve to report the post when Muppet finally replies to his goading.

Week maybe more dunno yet.


kdjac

Thanx 4 The Fish

Muppet banned for flaming.