Guess what? My bookie pays triple the odds if you only have one winner in a lucky 31 Beefy ffs stop going on as if you were personally responsible for every ****ing Mullins winner Chelsea well in
Just back from work to find that news of the terminal decline of Mr Mullins/Walsh were greatly exaggerated. I also believe Phil Smith is set to impose an automatic 2 stone penalty on all Irish trained horses running in handicaps at the 2018 Cheltenham festival as it turns out they're even bigger scheming, fiddling bastards than he thought. Make the dear ol Pipe clan look like Mother Theresa.
I am doing it too a Bob. Hoping to be retired and living in Spain by the end of the year and Cheltenham next year for the whole festival is on the agenda.
It would be a pleasure to meet up old boy. We must remember nearer the time. I'd be quite happy spending a couple of hours in your company sharing a few drinks. I'll teach you something about wine and you can teach me something about picking a Cheltenham winner!
I know they love you in here, but you are a little billy big bollix aren't you..A fiver is all you had on that accum? Even at best odds you would never have been offered £1500 cash out..YH was never bigger than 13/8 (although was 2/1 at WH this morning for a short time), UDS never bigger than 3/1 , NC never bigger than 12/1 and LD never bigger than 13/8..Granted it was a lovely bet but don't talk ****e with your £3200 potential win and £1500 cash out...
He had one from the previous evening in the bet. People post stuff, either take them at their word or don't but don't go calling people out on what bet/stake/winnings they've had
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I'm not aware of any particular clique on here, although there was a quite a noticeable one on the old BBC 606 Perhaps someone could advise me if I'm in or out Gill: there HAVE been blaggers here in the past, and they pretty quickly get found out. I have no reason to suppose Chelsea was being a billy big bollix, and to be honest from some of his previous tips, he'd be justified even if he was. I understand your scepticism, but sometimes it's better to just keep it to yourself. Just my 2 cents
What clique? If by that you mean regular contributors who provide insight, winners and enjoyable chat then yes. He is not one of the clique. Just like yourself. That doesn't stop him or anyone else contributing but if the first input is criticising established members then he's going to be questioned. Surely this is not a particularly unconventional occurance? Maybe I'm wrong and it's perfectly fine to come on and try to WUM without any push back.
