Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

Your Airbag

Sacramento wrote: »

How everyone that keeps thinking Bateman had a point without addressing the "De Gea saved us more points than he lost us" fact are clearly just wandering in and skimming over half the posts. It looks really stupid when you do this.

You literally come in, regurgitate a post from a known troll, that among other things, has had countless counter arguments put against it and then think you actually have a point without addressing any of those counters!?

And this clique argument, I'm ginger, definitely not part of any clique, so get de fúck with that nonsense or open a thread about it in conspiracy theories.

Whats really stupid is you quoting my post without reading it or being able to understand the point I was making.

I said at least twice in my post I disagreed with him on ddg and the twins and I know how reactionary some of his posts were but that he was banned too soon this time, he was only starting to reply to some of those counter posts and then he was gone.

If his opinions are going against the vast majority that in itself is not a reason to be banned. I didn't see anything else worthy of a ban in his posts other than the fact he is in the minority.

I have seen much more troll worthy posts from other ppl and Bateman himself in the past than the one that got him banned again yesterday.

I'm sorry your ginger and excluded from any cliques btw but thats no reason to swear at me and just because your not part of any clique doesn't mean there isn't one.

markc1184

Please, please, please can I join the clique. I feel so left out and alone!

homerjay2005

Eathrin wrote: »

Bookies have odds on us to sign Modric but I honestly just don't see it happening.
Not much else happening afaik

just on this, we met a few croats sunday and monday and spend a few hours on the lash with them. one of them claims that he met modric while the team were out walking and modric told him that he was more than likely going to be at a new club, but he didnt say anything else.

Felexicon

markc1184 wrote: »

Please, please, please can I join the clique. I feel so left out and alone!

Sorry it's the no Marks club. If you had asked earlier we could have come up with a different name but we're all so used to it now

TheTownie

Your Airbag wrote: »

Whats really stupid is you quoting my post without reading it or being able to understand the point I was making.

I said at least twice in my post I disagreed with him on ddg and the twins and I know how reactionary some of his posts were but that he was banned too soon this time, he was only starting to reply to some of those counter posts and then he was gone.

If his opinions are going against the vast majority that in itself is not a reason to be banned. I didn't see anything else worthy of a ban in his posts other than the fact he is in the minority.

I have seen much more troll worthy posts from other ppl and Bateman himself in the past than the one that got him banned again yesterday.

I'm sorry your ginger and excluded from any cliques btw but thats no reason to swear at me and just because your not part of any clique doesn't mean there isn't one.

I know you don't agree with him on DDG but that alone is enough to get rid of him;

Sean Bateman wrote: »

I'm back...

Shame I was proved 100% correct re David De Gea - His disastrous performances helped to cost us the league. A world class goalkeeper for the here and now is required.

Two world class midfielders are clearly required. Modric would be one. Kagawa could be a good signing but I suspect that we've just bought a journeyman to replace Park from a marketing perspective.

One or possibly two fullbacks are also required. The twins are jokers - Headless chickens that can't be trusted and Evra's gone rapidly downhill since WC 2010. Phil Jones is being afflicted with John O'Shea syndrome - Jack of all trades and master of none. He's not a fullback and neither is Chris Smalling.

Shame Morrison and Pogba were let go but if they were that good, they'd have been playing regularly.

Anderson had proven time and time again that he can't be relied upon - Dump him.

Add 3 - 4 top class players into the mix and we're on the pigs back.

So no ludicrous spin about "no value in the market" please Fergie. Stop defending the Glazers and get the chequebook out.

100%? after all the shít he spouted before? Just in case you have forgotten, read here.

Hes either delusional or a troll. Either way I'm happy to see the back if him.

And yes it is fair to use his previous form against him. The mods had a choice, get rid of him now or let him troll for a few weeks then get rid.

Bateman made it very clear straight away that he was going to continue where he left off with his DDG vendetta.

Your Airbag

Your Airbag wrote: »

Whats really stupid is you quoting my post without reading it or being able to understand the point I was making.

I said at least twice in my post I disagreed with him on ddg and the twins and I know how reactionary some of his posts were but that he was banned too soon this time, he was only starting to reply to some of those counter posts and then he was gone.

If his opinions are going against the vast majority that in itself is not a reason to be banned. I didn't see anything else worthy of a ban in his posts other than the fact he is in the minority.

I have seen much more troll worthy posts from other ppl and Bateman himself in the past than the one that got him banned again yesterday.

I'm sorry your ginger and excluded from any cliques btw but thats no reason to swear at me and just because your not part of any clique doesn't mean there isn't one.

I think you've misunderstood me, but reading over my post i can see how what i said could be misinterpreted. I meant "you" in the wider sense, not you specifically Airbag. I actually agree with some of what you said. Except the clique bit and the banning of Bateman being harsh among some other stuff.

If i could have selectively quoted your post it would have made more sense but I'm on the phone and it's time consuming to do.

Al Capwned

Just following on from what I said earlier, and maybe to explain myself a little better.

It can appear to new or non-regular posters that there is a clique. I dont believe this is the case.

One of the main reasons I think is this - there is a definite respect between a lot of the more long-term members of this thread, and this comes through in a lot of the language used toward each other.

Now this could be interpreted as being chummy and cliquey by those who haven't also seen the same posters debating something at length because they don't agree with the others opinions, or by those who pay only fleeting visits to the thread.

I visit this thread many times every day, and I read every single post, and to say there is a clique, or that some posters have a 'fan club' is, in my opinion incorrect. Personally, I have a number of posters whose comments I look out for, and whose opinions I (largely) agree with, but I would never call myself a fan of these particular posters. And if there is something said that I disagree with, I'll say it.

Fair enough you don't have to agree with everything that is said, but address the issues properly, patiently, and with your reasons for your opinions, and don't descend to name-calling or other petty sh1te.

My biggest issue with the thread is the constant "Oh this is going to the dogs, it's not what it used to be" comments. Use the ignore button generously, and clean it up for yourself!

Anyway, sorry for clogging it up with my ramblings.

Orando Broom

Well done Samich and your Airbag for defending Sean Bateman's right to an opinion. Whilst personally I think his post was nonsenes I do defend his right to post such nonsense. A permaban is overly harsh. I can understand how people would be riled by his guff a lot like Conno but there is far too many sheep on the thread that row in behind one or two posters' opinions. It breeds for some seriously unhealthy debate on the United thread.

One post that I found particularly offensive is so far as it was unchecked wad the one below.

lordgoat wrote: »

Laura, can we get a ban here please!

I thought calling for a ban was in itself bannable as it was backseat modding. Can I report this post as back seat modding?


There is a lot of behaviour on this thread in particular that is, to be frank, borderline bullying. There are several very cute, capable posters who play the infractions system very, very well. The insults are backhanded and veiled leaving sufficent ambiguity to avoid the ban. I think the Mods have to look at the meaning and intention behind such posts.

Sean Bateman probably was on the win-up but I think it is for mods to deal with it and likewise deal with the posters who attack the poster without any rebuttals of their own. The 'stupid post' 'tedious post' type replies should be infracted in my opinion. I think that is abuse. It is confrotational and abusive. You would never say that to a person on the street or in your office without you being regarded as an overly aggressive person. Why should it be any different on here.

I'd be grateful for the mods and posters opinion on this.

Felexicon

And then they all hugged, kissed and made up and the thread got back to being about football.

Felexicon

Orando Broom wrote: »

Well done Samich and your Airbag for defending Sean Bateman's right to an opinion. Whilst personally I think his post was nonsenes I do defend his right to post such nonsense. A permaban is overly harsh. I can understand how people would be riled by his guff a lot like Conno but there is far too many sheep on the thread that row in behind one or two posters' opinions. It breeds for some seriously unhealthy debate on the United thread.

One post that I found particularly offensive is so far as it was unchecked wad the one below.



I thought calling for a ban was in itself bannable as it was backseat modding. Can I report this post as back seat modding?


There is a lot of behaviour on this thread in particular that is, to be frank, borderline bullying. There are several very cute, capable posters who play the infractions system very, very well. The insults are backhanded and veiled leaving sufficent ambiguity to avoid the ban. I think the Mods have to look at the meaning and intention behind such posts.

Sean Bateman probably was on the win-up but I think it is for mods to deal with it and likewise deal with the posters who attack the poster without any rebuttals of their own. The 'stupid post' 'tedious post' type replies should be infracted in my opinion. I think that is abuse. It is confrotational and abusive. You would never say that to a person on the street or in your office without you being regarded as an overly aggressive person. Why should it be any different on here.

I'd be grateful for the mods and posters opinion on this.

Surely this belongs in the feedback thread

Orando Broom

Felexicon wrote: »

Surely this belongs in the feedback thread

Perhaps; but I feel it is pertains to this thread in particular due to the posters involved. I'm happy for it to be moved by the mods if they so wish.

Mitch Connor

Orando Broom wrote: »

Well done Samich and your Airbag for defending Sean Bateman's right to an opinion. Whilst personally I think his post was nonsenes I do defend his right to post such nonsense. A permaban is overly harsh. I can understand how people would be riled by his guff a lot like Conno but there is far too many sheep on the thread that row in behind one or two posters' opinions. It breeds for some seriously unhealthy debate on the United thread.

One post that I found particularly offensive is so far as it was unchecked wad the one below.



I thought calling for a ban was in itself bannable as it was backseat modding. Can I report this post as back seat modding?


There is a lot of behaviour on this thread in particular that is, to be frank, borderline bullying. There are several very cute, capable posters who play the infractions system very, very well. The insults are backhanded and veiled leaving sufficent ambiguity to avoid the ban. I think the Mods have to look at the meaning and intention behind such posts.

Sean Bateman probably was on the win-up but I think it is for mods to deal with it and likewise deal with the posters who attack the poster without any rebuttals of their own. The 'stupid post' 'tedious post' type replies should be infracted in my opinion. I think that is abuse. It is confrotational and abusive. You would never say that to a person on the street or in your office without you being regarded as an overly aggressive person. Why should it be any different on here.

I'd be grateful for the mods and posters opinion on this.

If one of the lads in work said the same thing to me, in a chat about football, having said similar many times before, I would also tell him his opinion was absolutely stupid, and though he was entitled to it - he was also wrong. If he continued on, I would tell him to stop talking to me about football because i could not be arsed to listen to him.

Orando Broom

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If one of the lads in work said the same thing to me, in a chat about football, having said similar many times before, I would also tell him his opinion was absolutely stupid, and though he was entitled to it - he was also wrong. If he continued on, I would tell him to stop talking to me about football because i could not be arsed to listen to him.

I'd consider you an irrational, aggressive person to be honest.

Seriously you say that to a person, eacatly like that. You would decry an opinion as 'absolutely stupid' and you would tell him to stop talking about football becuase of a contrary opinion, irrespective of its validity.

DM_7

Orando I get (not agree just get) where you are coming from and why you'd want to discuss it, but this type of discussion is only going to start rows. Can't we just talk about Manchester United at this point?

bullvine

This thread is becoming terrible, can we not get back to serious football talk please.

Al Capwned

Mate of mine going to Olympic match in OT - but has just the following information.

South stand, Row 7, Seat nos. 185-8.

No section information, however - This is surely a mistake on her part, yeah? Anyone shed light on it?

nicklauski

bullvine wrote: »

This thread is becoming terrible, can we not get back to serious football talk please.

Yeah Bill and taking each game on it's merits /Giles

The_Kew_Tour

Orando Broom wrote: »

I'd consider you an irrational, aggressive person to be honest.

No disrespect, but you in the past have had no problem name calling other posters in past.

Take your own advice.

Pro. F

The thing about Bateman was that he said the same things about DDG again and again and again, and ignored all the counter arguments put to him. He said DDG would be an unmitigated disaster and one of the worst signings that Fergie ever made, but then six months later when that has been certainly proven to not be the case Bateman says he has been proven right. That type of behavior is against the charter under the trolling section. It is specifically mentioned in fact.

Read TheTownie's link if you need your memory jogged on what Bateman was saying and how he was behaving last Autumn.

Add to that that he came back into the thread after his ban and started responding to himself with an alt account which has since been banned for same. That should be final proof that he was not the type of poster who contributes positively to a forum.

keane2097

Orando Broom wrote: »

I'd consider you an irrational, aggressive person to be honest.

Seriously you say that to a person, eacatly like that. You would decry an opinion as 'absolutely stupid' and you would tell him to stop talking about football becuase of a contrary opinion, irrespective of its validity.

A known troll, moments after having a ban for trolling lifted, re-enters the thread with a comment indicative of an intention to resume trolling and makes a post which is an unconcealed, slightly modified glorification of his many previous trolling posts.

A moderator who is very familiar with the troll, and who - being a fan of another club - has little or no emotional attachment to the players/club the troll is using to elicit emotional responses from other posters recognises the post as a true to form troll and immediately bans the guilty party.

Samich

Pro. F wrote: »

The thing about Bateman was that he said the same things about DDG again and again and again, and ignored all the counter arguments put to him. He said DDG would be an unmitigated disaster and one of the worst signings that Fergie ever made, but then six months later when that has been certainly proven to not be the case Bateman says he has been proven right. That type of behavior is against the charter under the trolling section. It is specifically mentioned in fact.

Read TheTownie's link if you need your memory jogged on what Bateman was saying and how he was behaving last Autumn.

Add to that that he came back into the thread after his ban and started responding to himself with an alt account which has since been banned for same. That should be final proof that he was not the type of poster who contributes positively to a forum.

Just because you think he's been proven wrong, doesn't mean he's automatically forced to change his opinion. You might think it's a mad opinion but the fact of the matter is they were his opinions.

He also mentioned that Phil Jones is like John O Shea, jack of all trades, master of none. Do people accuse him of trolling if they think he's a teen sensation?

No, Bateman has his opinion, and said he's being played all over the place and hasn't nailed down his position. You could see his reasoning behind the point he made!

And I said I wasn't posting anymore but was hard not to.

Some people mightn't have a big knowledge of soccer and their opinions may well be not right, but is he not allowed to still have opinions? Should there be a knowledge test before posting now?

Your Airbag

Orando Broom wrote: »

Well done Samich and your Airbag for defending Sean Bateman's right to an opinion. Whilst personally I think his post was nonsenes I do defend his right to post such nonsense. A permaban is overly harsh. I can understand how people would be riled by his guff a lot like Conno but there is far too many sheep on the thread that row in behind one or two posters' opinions. It breeds for some seriously unhealthy debate on the United thread.

There is a lot of behaviour on this thread in particular that is, to be frank, borderline bullying. There are several very cute, capable posters who play the infractions system very, very well. The insults are backhanded and veiled leaving sufficent ambiguity to avoid the ban. I think the Mods have to look at the meaning and intention behind such posts.

Sean Bateman probably was on the win-up but I think it is for mods to deal with it and likewise deal with the posters who attack the poster without any rebuttals of their own. The 'stupid post' 'tedious post' type replies should be infracted in my opinion. I think that is abuse. It is confrotational and abusive. You would never say that to a person on the street or in your office without you being regarded as an overly aggressive person. Why should it be any different on here.

I'd be grateful for the mods and posters opinion on this.

Great post and two points I strongly agree with. A permaban within hours of returning was not called for. Bateman, although a little cheeky had not been half as offensive as some of the people on here, granted his opinion was going against the grain but no-one would deny that (a) De Gae did not get off to a great start, hence Fergie dropping him (b) the twins are not the finished article yet and can at times make poor decisions. Raf has a tendancy to get himself booked a lot. Now Bateman thinks they should all be shipped out, which is harsh, and more experinced marquee names if you like brought in. I disagree, we showed faith in DDG and it paid off, Raf will mature and be a very good player imo.

I'm not trying to open the DDG/twins discussion again here and don't wat to derail the thread any further, what I'm saying is should he have been perma banned for his opinion on those players? No imo. Disagreed with by all means and engaged in discussion yes but perma banned? If thats how discussions are going to unfold on here well its a little sad.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If one of the lads in work said the same thing to me, in a chat about football, having said similar many times before, I would also tell him his opinion was absolutely stupid, and though he was entitled to it - he was also wrong. If he continued on, I would tell him to stop talking to me about football because i could not be arsed to listen to him.

In my workplace at the start of the season plenty of ppl talked about how poor DeGae was. I would never throw in the stupid word when I felt he just needed time. I can't think of a more insulting word actually to greet a differing opinion. No offence Mitch but there are a couple of guys in work who laugh and snort at most peoples opinions. They greet everything with "What don't you understand" and "Christ will the penny ever drop with you". They go to lunch by themselves everyday now.

This thread for the most part is great but at times can have a nasty undertone. Batemans post yesterday was far less deserving of a permaban than some of the stuff on here that doesn't even get a warning.

Thats the last I will say on it.

Lets steer the conversation elsewhere.

What about Gary Neville as the next Utd manager?

MagicMarker

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STFU!

The_Kew_Tour

Has there been any updates on our supposed link to that Porto LB?

Jax Teller

MagicMarker wrote: »

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STFU!

Is that language really necessary ?

adox

Orando Broom wrote: »

Well done Samich and your Airbag for defending Sean Bateman's right to an opinion. Whilst personally I think his post was nonsenes I do defend his right to post such nonsense. A permaban is overly harsh. I can understand how people would be riled by his guff a lot like Conno but there is far too many sheep on the thread that row in behind one or two posters' opinions. It breeds for some seriously unhealthy debate on the United thread.

One post that I found particularly offensive is so far as it was unchecked wad the one below.



I thought calling for a ban was in itself bannable as it was backseat modding. Can I report this post as back seat modding?


There is a lot of behaviour on this thread in particular that is, to be frank, borderline bullying. There are several very cute, capable posters who play the infractions system very, very well. The insults are backhanded and veiled leaving sufficent ambiguity to avoid the ban. I think the Mods have to look at the meaning and intention behind such posts.

Sean Bateman probably was on the win-up but I think it is for mods to deal with it and likewise deal with the posters who attack the poster without any rebuttals of their own. The 'stupid post' 'tedious post' type replies should be infracted in my opinion. I think that is abuse. It is confrotational and abusive. You would never say that to a person on the street or in your office without you being regarded as an overly aggressive person. Why should it be any different on here.

I'd be grateful for the mods and posters opinion on this.

The Bateman banning for the few posts since he was back may look harsh but, taken in the context of his early season form was totally justified. he was absolutely ruining the thread, not just with garbage he was posting(which everyone is entitled to do but shouldnt not expect to be called on it), but moreso the sheer volume of his repeated nonsense on the same subject.

We had pages and pages and pages and pages of him saying the exact same thing day in day out, page after page. No argument/counter argument. He could have been cutting and pasting what he was posting. If ever there was a poster that deserved the boot it was him.

With regard to Lordgoat, i`m sure that post was meant light heartdly but I`m sure he can explain for himself.

Also you havent been short of a strong opinion or two, called numerous posters names and belittled many on this thread so the last part of your post comes across as hypocritical.

Samich

Originally Posted by Sgt Pepper 64
Really? I agreed with every word
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Pepper 64
Even the most die hard Utd fan would admit that the jury is still out on him, wouldnt they?

He will be more settled this season though and Utd goalkeepers are usually a tough act to follow
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgt Pepper 64
I did the first part alright, cos I am a bit of a looker and always enjoy passing the mirror

but the second part? Good god man, a football match seems to be always 90 mins long PLUS Fergie time!

Thats like an hour and a half of concentration in EVERY match!

Thank god for highlights and youtube, thats all I'll say there!

This is that "banter" I have heard so much of I assume.

Not trolling

The quotes are from Sgt Pepper, the red writing is from Kryogen in reply to his posts.

Is Sgt Pepper gonna get a ban? Doubtful as he is one of the well known posters on the board.

Samich

adox wrote: »

The Bateman banning for the few posts since he was back may look harsh but, taken in the context of his early season form was totally justified. he was absolutely ruining the thread, not just with garbage he was posting(which everyone is entitled to do but shouldnt not expect to be called on it), but moreso the sheer volume of his repeated nonsense on the same subject.

We had pages and pages and pages and pages of him saying the exact same thing day in day out, page after page. No argument/counter argument. He could have been cutting and pasting what he was posting. If ever there was a poster that deserved the boot it was him.

With regard to Lordgoat, i`m sure that post was meant light heartdly but I`m sure he can explain for himself.

Also you havent been short of a strong opinion or two, called numerous posters names and belittled many on this thread so the last part of your post comes across as hypocritical.

How many ways can a person say he cost goals and points???

keane2097

Samich wrote: »

How many ways can a person say he cost goals and points???

Google "soapboxing", then check the forum rules, then kindly STFU.

Mitch Connor

Orando Broom wrote: »

I'd consider you an irrational, aggressive person to be honest.

Seriously you say that to a person, eacatly like that. You would decry an opinion as 'absolutely stupid' and you would tell him to stop talking about football becuase of a contrary opinion, irrespective of its validity.

irrespective of its validity? Its validity is central to the issue.

Someone says Liverpool were unlucky last season and points to hitting the post so much - fine. I don't agree with them but I can understand their point. I would argue the point and discuss it with them, as their opinion has some validity.

Someone says Liverpool were the best side in Europe last season because they beat Cardiff in the Carling Cup on penalties and I'm going to argue the point as to why they are wrong. They say it again, i'll repeat the arguments against. they continue to say it, without adding to their point or taking on board the counter arguments, I'm going to say they are being moronic and their opinion is stupid and wrong, and that I don't want to listen to them talk about it anymore cause they are just wasting my time.

I don't see why that is an unreasonable position. Why should anyone entertain people arguing the same opinion over and over and over again, with no change in tone or content, when the initial opinion was questionable to begin with.

Even with a valid opinion, if someone you work with harped on at you about the same single point, serveral times a day, every day, a point you had made very clear you didn't agree with several times with reasoned and thoughtout arguments, you would continue to entertain them and their diatribe every single day continuously?

As a related aside, while people are entitled to opinions, it has to be understood that an opinion can be incorrect. If I say my opinion is my partially blind, probably deaf, cat could take on an in-the-prime-of-life Tiger in a fight and win, would you consider that to be a perfectly reasonable and respectable opinion? No, you wouldn't, cause I'd be talking demonstrable crap and, imo, you'd have every right to call me on it.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

This is that "banter" I have heard so much of I assume.

Not trolling

The quotes are from Sgt Pepper, the red writing is from Kryogen in reply to his posts.

Is Sgt Pepper gonna get a ban? Doubtful as he is one of the well known posters on the board.

Are you deliberately mis representing me?

It is quite clear I was joking with him by the smilies used.

Stop mis representing me.

Thank you

Samich

stooge wrote: »

When you say replying to 'these two' I assume you mean Sneijder/Dembele?

Did you watch many Inter matches this year? Sneijder, despite not playing as well as the season before was arguably Inter's best player. Similarly at the euros, despite the whole team not performing, Sneijder was one of the most dangerous players for the Dutch. I cant single out a better player for Holland over the 3 games. can you?

Dembele I suppose is just an example of the type of player I think Utd's CM need. Physically strong, very mobile and a decent ball player. One area Utd look out this season was closing down in midfield. Scholes/Giggs are unable to do it for 90mins. Carrick is just unwilling to do it at all.

Fair enough if you have replied about these two players before. Instead of childishly saying you wont reply, just point me to the posts were you did put forward valid reasons for not wanting them.

cheers

And how is this worthy of a red card?

Once again, a well known poster says this and nothing happens.

PhlegmyMoses

I'm not certain that Sgt Pepper is well-known for the right reasons, tbf. Some of his opinions on football are mental. Everything rosy and optimistic about Chelsea, massive negatron about other clubs.

Mitch Connor

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Has there been any updates on our supposed link to that Porto LB?

Ah, the fella that said Evra would need body armour when France play Uraguay? The fella that said United and Evra used the incident to get Suarez banned so liverpool would be without their star striker? That fella?

Nope, no updates and oddly I would be surprised if there were!

MagicMarker

Samich wrote: »

And how is this worthy of a red card?

Once again, a well known poster says this and nothing happens.

I think you're in the wrong forum, you're looking for feedback. Please go there and stay there, unless you're actually going to start talking about United.

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

Are you deliberately mis representing me?

It is quite clear I was joking with him by the smilies used.

Stop mis representing me.

Thank you

Ha, it's quite funny that Pepper was saying similar things to Bateman.

The_Kew_Tour

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Ah, the fella that said Evra would need body armour when France play Uraguay? The fella that said United and Evra used the incident to get Suarez banned so liverpool would be without their star striker? That fella?

Nope, no updates and oddly I would be surprised if there were!

Im bit confused:pac:.

What am I missing?:)

Mitch Connor

Samich wrote: »

And how is this worthy of a red card?

Once again, a well known poster says this and nothing happens.

I don't understand that red at all - not a bit of it seems off.

Jax Teller

Samich reminds me of a Harry Enfield Character. Who can guess who ?

keane2097

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't understand that red at all - not a bit of it seems off.

I suspect that's down to stooge being a gimmick account of Bateman's.

Mitch Connor

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Im bit confused:pac:.

What am I missing?:)

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/12/30/2823644/portos-alvaro-pereira-hits-out-at-manchester-uniteds-patrice

Samich

keane2097 wrote: »

I suspect that's down to stooge being a gimmick account of Bateman's.

Match IPs, and he'd be sitebanned forever.

bullvine

I don't post that often but having been lurking for a long time knowing most of the usernames, the way Bateman behaved earlier in the year, his ban is totally justified.

Orando Broom

Your Airbag wrote: »

What about Gary Neville as the next Utd manager?

Nay. Gary Neville next Ireland manager.

I'm quite serious too. I think he'd be a gem of a manager. A guy with loads to prove working with a decent core of young players and a little bit of pressure on his shoulders.

Opinions?

The_Kew_Tour

Mitch Connor wrote: »

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/12/30/2823644/portos-alvaro-pereira-hits-out-at-manchester-uniteds-patrice

Then the:o is on me.

Did not know that.

and I be first to give out about another wild transfer rumour:pac:

GavRedKing

Samich wrote: »

And how is this worthy of a red card?

Once again, a well known poster says this and nothing happens.

The red was issued for a re-reg account which is against the Charter, pretty easy to understand if you click the little red card.

keane2097

gavredking wrote: »

The red was issued for a re-reg account which is against the Charter, pretty easy to understand if you click the little red card.

Samich wrote: »

Match IPs, and he'd be sitebanned forever.

Eh?

Samich

gavredking wrote: »

The red was issued for a re-reg account which is against the Charter, pretty easy to understand if you click the little red card.

Re reg accounts are site bannable. Why isn't he sitebanned then?

Samich

keane2097 wrote: »

Eh?

You should read terms and conditions before signing up to sites.

EDIT: Seeing as it's allowed "You should fúcking read terms and fúcking conditions before signing up to sites. GTFO ffs.

Mitch Connor

Orando Broom wrote: »

Nay. Gary Neville next Ireland manager.

I'm quite serious too. I think he'd be a gem of a manager. A guy with loads to prove working with a decent core of young players and a little bit of pressure on his shoulders.

Opinions?

Doesn't want to be a manager according to his biography - wants to be an assistant manager. Says he reckons Giggs is destined to be a manager and a top one at that.

Giggs as manager and Neville as No.2? Maybe. Solskjaer as manager with Nev as number 2 - a very decent shout imo.