I know some of us rub each other up the wrong way on occasion but I honestly dont get why this **** is allowed access to the internet let alone allowed to post on here.
You're trying too hard. If you have nothing to offer, you're best offering nothing. Struggling with your obsession, aren't you? Carry on.
you are a wierd person why do you even post on here, i hope you don't get banned cos anyone getting banned is lame it's a forum people can post wierd **** and shouldn't be banned but what is your point on this forum you just post wierd ****
Oh, the irony! For me, this is the funniest post of the week, especially coming from you. Did you write this yourself, or did you copy-n-paste it from (several, almost-identical) 'banning requests' from SCB and his BFF? You must be right on the edge of a short, salutary ban yourself. No? Have you got your formal Letter of Acceptance from The Clique yet, or are you still 'provisional'? Let me know if you need a professional reference. Do you need it on letterhead, or will common foolscap do?
FFS give it a rest. give each other a wide birth. It really is quite easy. There is some good stuff on here, you just have to bloody sift through so much ****, It really is tedious. Banter is fantastic but some of this is utter ****ing dross. BERTH (Happy now?)
Hi, BrAdY. You're probably missing the point, here. You're obviously smarter than that. Just look at whom that particular reply of mine is directed -- at the nastiest poster, by far, on this board; one with obviously unaddressed mental issues -- and it should be clear to you why I chose to adopt a 'gormless Cuthbert' approach in that particular post. I don't believe I need to elaborate the point with you or most other posters. Take the time to read the thread after the point where he/she first raises its ugly head (launching an unprovoked attack on yet another of his/her frequent victims, Patty -- who, overall, is a far better contributor than SCB and his gormless little clique); I think you may get a radically different viewpoint after doing that. That morbidly overweight dick, SCB, specialises in trying (sometimes successfully in his mind and his little clique's, I admit) to belittle and ridicule other posters. Unlike him, I don't keep a 'vast archive' of other people's posts, so I don't know whether he's had a serious go at you yet. I admit that Patty can be annoying. He posts a lot of (sometimes quite amusing) nonsense, as well as, occasionally, some quite good stuff -- much like many other posters on here. He only very rarely posts anything that I would consider disgusting or unacceptable. I honestly wish he would rein back his contributions on here, as he is currently being victimized by the Bad Boys on this forum, whatever he may say.
Leaving your obvious (hilarious) typo to someone else, I agree totally. If anyone chooses to assign blame, speed-read through this entire thread to find where the actual problems start. You may be surprised. Or not, depending on your gullibility.
The intention of yesterday's boycott has been widely debated and a fair degree of press attention was garnered - at a price. I'm keen to know what the plans are for the future, what the wider strategy looks like.
National publicity and a show of solidarity from the fans who wanted to pass the message to the Allam's that they want them to leave Whether either of those things actually increase the likely hood of a sale none of us knows, and we'll all have a different opinion on. For what's it's worth I don't think there should be another boycott, but I do think that the Trust should be considering plans for another type of protest if it is needed / wanted
Do you think it achieved the stated aim of raising national media awareness? (regardless of whether that was the right tactic or not)
Excellent. Still no opinion on the thread topic? You have a unhealthy obsession with me. Your quest for power is failing. I feel for you, you sound desperate. You really have no idea. You support Spurs.
That's my issue with the whole thing. Even though it was kinda my idea. There should have been one specific aim attached to the boycott (such as the use of the club's name), right now, there's nowhere else to go other than another boycott. Let's hope it's a **** tie again in the fourth round.
The problem with boycotting the Swansea City match is the Trust has no idea how successful the call for the boycott was. It was an unattractive match to begin with as was shown by the increase in sales when Marco Silva was appointed. Also some people will have decided to spend their money on the League Cup semi-final rather than this match. Add in the general malaise around the club and the failure of the Allams to set Hull on fire with enthusiasm for Hull City and you get slowly dwindling crowds despite being in the Premier League and having a winnable 3rd round tie against Swansea City. The problem I have with the boycott is where do the Trust go next. They want rid of the Allams who are unlikely to be forced out against their will, especially if they see the chance of a £30 million profit by selling a Premier League team. So do we have another boycott, and then another, and another. For me the issue isn't necessarily the Allams, its the failure to use our name, the lack of concessions and being treated like cattle to be moved at the will of the club. The appointment of Marcos Silva has changed the balance. He wants a full, vibrant KC backing the team. Lets give him it. Fill the place with Hull City flags, highlight the lack of concessions and start re-claiming our club. The Bournemouth match should be designated Welcome to Hull City day for Marco Silva and his staff. Similar to the Hull City day it should be widely advertised with the similar rules. Bring an Hull City flag, wear Hull City shirts, scarves etc, bring Hull City welcomes Marco Silva flags and banners, stand and sing if possible, sit and sing if not, no moaning, booing or leaving before the end, applaud our players off the pitch whatever the result, etc.
