Oooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh

So at the end of the day, this is just more anti- Leeds scaremongering. Just as well it wan't a Leeds fan that started this shiite rumour. Oh, wait a minute!

 

Think Glory/TC are having a contest who can make up the most crap.

 

The meeting happened and as per the op stated no idea what was going to be discussed. The fact you assumed it must be mean something negative indicates that you just have some concerns about what they could have been talking about,

 

Erm the meeting happened.... As no suggestion was made as to what discussed struggling to see why you would say it's crap....

 

probably just an update,on efforts to sign a striker.My comment was aimed at why you assume it has to be negative.

 

If op wasnt intended to be negative, please change title of thread to something more neutral like wahaaaaaaaaaay maybe

 

I didn't? you however did!

 

Don't know about you but I say ooooohhhhhh at moments of extreme pleasure so not sure what you are getting at.

 

is that when you get your cross dressing personal assistant to **** you off?

 

I wouldn't know. I never have those moments

 

Au contraire, Mon Ami. Your regular posting demeanor allows us to associate your posts with negativity as a default. Very easy assumption for us to make.

 

Only if you are prejudicial in your assessment.
You believe Cellino is innocent till proven guilty in every case and are unwilling to let previous behavior be a factor. A little bit of cheese eating surrender speak doesn't hide your hypocrisy.

 

I was struggling to remember if I am honest.

 

So you're saying that everyone is innocent until proven guilty unless you say so? Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Hitler?

 

No. Am saying everyone is innocent because you said so.....
Or is it a wedding between Mr Hippo and Miss Crit?

 

Everyone IS innocent until proven guilty in this country. Not my say-so, matey - it's the law! Perhaps not in Gloryland, right enough

 

typical sweattie.
Hiding behind others whilst shouting the odds.

Shame you are wrong though. Last time I checked this was a public forum and therefore operating under civil law and not criminal law, so has a lower level of proof required.

Criminal law requires proof to show beyond reasonable but in civil matters it's only in the balance of probability.

Given the eytie twat has been a crook all his life it's legitimate to suggest he is still at it.


Get out of that rumpole.

 

So was it the thought of Cellino or Evans that gave you the extreme pleasure.

 

You still lied...........