Wolverhampton Wanderers matchday thread
Select messages from
# through # FAQ
[/[Print]\]
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  :| |:
CTFC.net Fans Forum -> -> Talk football

#106:  Author: Paulc222 PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 11:54 am
    —
notso wrote:
Paulc222 wrote:
bandy1954 wrote:
Paulc222 wrote:
Too lightweight for playing against Wolves. Should have been on the bench fishing


You are a *beep* with a comment like that. One of our best players in years


Look at the timing of my post you humourless fool. It was just after he scored. I was having a little pop at those who call him lightweight.
Sorry to note that you can only read in one dimension


I can't believe that someone bit hook, line and sinker Laughing


I still haven't worked out if it was me or the Bandy one though Smile

#107:  Author: josefkLocation: West Stand A90 PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:10 pm
    —
smackwizard wrote:
James wrote:
Red, Red & Red wrote:
parachute money is an unfair advantage and needs stamping out football


You need stamping out you raging bell-end.


Laughing Laughing Laughing


So getting a considerable amount of money for being failures and to protect the wages of those who failed is correct? RR&R is actually right and as much as I now dislike the fella so was Holloway when he said it a while back.

#108:  Author: Peter PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:29 pm
    —
Some post-match reaction:

RB on BBC Surrey - http://bit.ly/16ppNAZ
Billy Clarke on Reds Player - http://bit.ly/154qm2X
RB on Reds Player - http://bit.ly/14qqmid
Mat Sadler on Reds Player - http://www.player.crawleytownf.....o-build-on
Mat Sadler on YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed_o9Xx0kbU

#109:  Author: Jim BakerLocation: Worth actually PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:54 pm
    —
Matt Sadler comes across very well in the interview.

Jim Baker

#110:  Author: Astral Voyager PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:13 pm
    —
josefk wrote:
smackwizard wrote:
James wrote:
Red, Red & Red wrote:
parachute money is an unfair advantage and needs stamping out football


You need stamping out you raging bell-end.


Laughing Laughing Laughing


So getting a considerable amount of money for being failures and to protect the wages of those who failed is correct? RR&R is actually right and as much as I now dislike the fella so was Holloway when he said it a while back.


Triple r is always rightl Laughing

#111:  Author: Paulc222 PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:17 pm
    —
Parachute payments do seem unfair on the face of it. However, unless there is a change in the rules governing player (and possibly other staff)contracts, getting rid of such payments could make a club go broke after relegation.
Consider the case of players who refuse to be transferred (as is their right if they are under contract) who are playing in front of much smaller crowds but are being paid the same money.
I'm wondering if there needs to be wage downgrading written into contracts in the event of relegation. I know it happens at some clubs but is there a case for making this compulsory? Would it even be legal to compel clubs to include such clauses?
Perhaps it could be engineered by lower basic pay but bigger bonuses?

#112:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:35 pm
    —
Armchairfan wrote:
*beep* me,I could have scored that.


Mine and Nathans view was that it reminded us of MC in his prime!

#113:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:38 pm
    —
Astral Voyager wrote:
http://oi43.tinypic.com/33p652d.jpg

Whos that old man with the grey hair? Embarassed


The one laying down?

Don't tell me, you did it on purpose like that Embarassed Laughing

#114:  Author: Peter PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:38 pm
    —
Match highlights from last night.

On Sky (4m 11s) - http://www1.skysports.com/watc.....-1-crawley
On Reds Player (10m 24s) - http://www.player.crawleytownf.....awley-Town

#115:  Author: IanLocation: The Parish of Rusper PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:42 pm
    —
Red, Red & Red wrote:
James wrote:
Well that was gutting.

Oh well, onwards.
no downwards and thats before the matches tomorrow when we'll undoubtedly go further DOWNwards


You know, last night 3 or 4 people were, independently and without prompt, telling me they don't use the forum much these days PURELY because of YOU trolling every thread with your anti club/team management/player rhetoric.

Peter should probably take note. I'm sure his stats will tell him that forum use must be 50% down over the last 18 months, at least in terms of postings, and if he's been wondering why then this unsolicited market research should give him some indication.

Ian

#116:  Author: bridgesboy79 PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:49 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
Red, Red & Red wrote:
James wrote:
Well that was gutting.

Oh well, onwards.
no downwards and thats before the matches tomorrow when we'll undoubtedly go further DOWNwards


You know, last night 3 or 4 people were, independently and without prompt, telling me they don't use the forum much these days PURELY because of YOU trolling every thread with your anti club/team management/player rhetoric.

Peter should probably take note. I'm sure his stats will tell him that forum use must be 50% down over the last 18 months, at least in terms of postings, and if he's been wondering why then this unsolicited market research should give him some indication.



Ian


Spot on. I will still use this forum as I won't be stopped from doing so by someone who makes the kind of comments a retarded chimp might suggest. Can completely understand why others don't though.

#117:  Author: mickfLocation: Southgate PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 3:59 pm
    —
Jim Baker wrote:
Matt Sadler comes across very well in the interview.

Jim Baker

An interesting comment (slip of the tongue maybe?) when asked about the fact the defence seemed more solid tonight, and commented that we "always do better with Danny in front of us"!
I also think having him in the team offers us an outlet going forward making himself available to pick up balls from the defenders and stopping the lump forward, we certainly missed him against Rotherham and was nice to see him back (maybe Lardy was right and would have done better with him in the team!!!!)
I dont think in any way he is a purely negative selection either, over the years he has shown he can pass the ball as well as anybody, and still seems to be fitter than anybody!!

#118:  Author: James PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:06 pm
    —
bridgesboy79 wrote:
Ian wrote:
Red, Red & Red wrote:
James wrote:
Well that was gutting.

Oh well, onwards.
no downwards and thats before the matches tomorrow when we'll undoubtedly go further DOWNwards


You know, last night 3 or 4 people were, independently and without prompt, telling me they don't use the forum much these days PURELY because of YOU trolling every thread with your anti club/team management/player rhetoric.

Peter should probably take note. I'm sure his stats will tell him that forum use must be 50% down over the last 18 months, at least in terms of postings, and if he's been wondering why then this unsolicited market research should give him some indication.



Ian


Spot on. I will still use this forum as I won't be stopped from doing so by someone who makes the kind of comments a retarded chimp might suggest. Can completely understand why others don't though.


I don't read it as much now as I can't be bothered to sift through the crap he posts. How can one troll ruin the pleasure for so many and still be allowed to get away with it.

Bellers?

#119:  Author: backofthenetLocation: Oop North PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:25 pm
    —
Ian wrote:
Red, Red & Red wrote:
James wrote:
Well that was gutting.

Oh well, onwards.
no downwards and thats before the matches tomorrow when we'll undoubtedly go further DOWNwards


You know, last night 3 or 4 people were, independently and without prompt, telling me they don't use the forum much these days PURELY because of YOU trolling every thread with your anti club/team management/player rhetoric.

Peter should probably take note. I'm sure his stats will tell him that forum use must be 50% down over the last 18 months, at least in terms of postings, and if he's been wondering why then this unsolicited market research should give him some indication.

Ian


Maybe a poll?

Options - no action, suspension or barring. I know which I'd vote for.

#120:  Author: ArmchairfanLocation: DFS PostPosted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 4:56 pm
    —
backofthenet wrote:
Ian wrote:
Red, Red & Red wrote:
James wrote:
Well that was gutting.

Oh well, onwards.
no downwards and thats before the matches tomorrow when we'll undoubtedly go further DOWNwards


You know, last night 3 or 4 people were, independently and without prompt, telling me they don't use the forum much these days PURELY because of YOU trolling every thread with your anti club/team management/player rhetoric.

Peter should probably take note. I'm sure his stats will tell him that forum use must be 50% down over the last 18 months, at least in terms of postings, and if he's been wondering why then this unsolicited market research should give him some indication.

Ian


Maybe a poll?

Options - no action, suspension or barring. I know which I'd vote for.

He did state a few years back that he is indeed Polish. Laughing



CTFC.net Fans Forum -> -> Talk football


output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  :| |:
Page 8 of 10

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group