I'd say I can't believe your still here after you said you was going to oblige and ****off at the beginning of this thread, but I expected you to stick around anyway PS - you still didn't answer my question
Thats very true. That moron Dermott Gallagher that does be on sky sports news every Monday morning defending the cabbage refs said the other week that all the refs were against the idea of getting rid of the black ref kits because black was a form of authority and they felt like they were in charge like policemen when they wore black.
You said you were only messing, but you were only worried about the tumbleweed really Don't get all cocky cause a few of your mates have turned up, you were glad of my sarcasm earlier you heartless bitch
I was only messing, still am. And what mates...? Not getting cocky, just pointing out that you are still to answer the original question pal
soory about this but. 1. who talked about dempsey and who was named by fulham in their complaint: answer FSG tV website but rodgers also make it worse (according to fulham) 2. who decided carroll was not good enough before he ever met him. Brendan 3. who agreed to let carroll go to west ham and faked injureis in europa to stop carroll playing? brendan 4. who nearly messed up the hearts game by letting carroll go for medical? 5. who let a player go on a thursday when he could be held until late o nthe friday to finalise once our deal was done? brendan 6. who fialed to get dempsey? ayre/fsg? so i think its quite fair to say that no matte rhow much ranting brendan did he had a big hand i nthe mistakes, not an innocent. a tongue in cheek view may compare said rant by brendan to a rather famous clip of hitler (anthony hopkins film)ranting that many football fans use to poke fun at different teams. i'd consider use of said clip most appropriate to send rodgers up here. my opinion is firmly that rodgers had a plan of how to play and it blew up in his face as borini is nowhere near ready and dempsey was never actually on. why on earth did the club not see that fulham were never going to sell to us on pure principal... or at least that 3mil was a truely derisary bid.
I think this is a bit harsh. - Carroll's injuries were clearly real. Look at how he went on his Hammers debut. He was out for weeks after that. - Our owners told Rodgers that Carroll was costing the club to much to be on the bench. Yes Rodgers had a plan in place, yes Carroll did not fit it, but he said he was happy to have him as a sub/alternative. - Yes we messed up with Dempsey. Ayre and Rodgers knew our owners views on signing players, transfer fee's and players ages. - I think Dempsey would have played ahead of Borini in the short term. - We need to move on and stop going on about it. We cant change whats happened and no one can. The club will learn from its mistake on Dempsey.
The old Spurs reprobate AKA HIAG has been spying on your thread Dev. "Hey, lads! You absolutely have to go onto the Mousers' board and read a thread recently posted by a Mouser called Gerrez, entitled "How Do We Compare With Our Rivals?" It is the very definition of delusion! Utterly unbelievable... again! I really am beginning to despair."
I still have no clue what the **** a mouser is or why they refer to us with that term. Should I feel offended or insulted?
Interesting read Gerrez, tho' shame it only has the teams around you and not the top three too - would be good to see how they compare too. Tho that might be stretching the whole "rivals" thing a bit much The "REAL" table thing is bollox tho cos, as with all these tables, it only takes account of definite goals. In the Utd vs Chelsea game they correctly point out Hernandez' goal was offside, but also that Torres should have been sent off for his tackle on Cleverley when Chelsea were 2-1 down. So somehow contrive to make that one a draw. The site also completely ignores whether Cleverley should have walked for the second tackle against Arsenal, which was basically the only contentious decision of that game! But the Liverpool vs Everton one is even worse - they say Suarez should have seen red for his tackle on Distin, but then claim his offside goal should have stood and so in the "real" table it's a win for Liverpool! Someone explain to me how those two claims add up please?!
Yep, agree with that. There is even an argument that these teams aren't our rivals Plus, if one of those key moments had been different then the remainder of the game would have turned out different too. Bugs me when there are two penalty claims and people claim its 'evened up'. Thats bollox. If the first was given (or not) then the rest of the game would have taken a different course. It would have been a goalkick, corner or throw-in etc rather than a penalty. If tge first is given, the second doesn't happen
