Crouchie's Lawyer

With his money, I would just sit back and retire. I would not try to do things which stand a good chance of frucking me up and making me look like a c*ck! He permenantly sounds stoned too whats going on with that? He used to sound fairly normal on the TV when he did the street tricks? Thing is every time he starts to feel really bad, he can say he just needs a sheet or peace and get down to go for one which kind of defeats the object dont you think?

Nah, I think the best one I have seen on here is Sprem John. Made me lol :smt037

I see dead people

You lot are'nt STILL clutching at straws are you? A takeover is NOT on the cards, get over it. Had there been any substance in the RUMOURS it would have happened by now. And even if you believe there is substance in the rumours, do you not think if they had the money they would have already purchased us? If they are still trying to aquire funds then are we likely to be any better off with more upheaval? I dont personally want another 'Wilde' saviour who has to check down the back of his sofa to find the extra few pence to buy us. Im afraid unless we get a foreign sugar daddy, then a takeover is not likely to happen. A certain Mr Lowe will not part company with his toy for what he believes is a like for like offer. Now without trying to sound rude, it seems to be the same culprits (Trousers, Delmary etc etc) who are dragging this on and on and on and on and on and on (get my drift?). Its boring and most of us have accepted the takeover is not going to happen in the days of Paul Allen (Cue funny person saying 'Is it back on again' or 'I have seen his boat'). If you channeled even half of your 'Im a detective get me out of here' skills into supporting the team then we may play better and actually stand a chance of attracting an investor! A REAL investor, not one you lot are making up to appease yourselves! Rant over, now close this bloody thread!

All well and good when your say 16 and your mates Mums are 30 something MILF's, however unless you have Glitter tendancies, I'm sure most of your mates Mums are likely to be hovering around the 50 mark. A GILF is a lot harder to find than a MILF.

Heard on the news last night that the bloke who killed the kids called up the mother after he had done it to say 'The girls are asleep now, forever'. She called the police straight away, but it was too late by the time they got there.

I think this should answer your question AwaySaint, although I'm sure if you had read it, you would have seen this. Although, having re-read it ESB, you only say 'My Wife'. There is no indication if you are separated from said Wife. Im guessing you are not though, but this may have been AS's point?

Agreed, he seemed to be very funny when posting his drunken stuff!

Apologies Pancake, god knows how as I have re-read it 4 or 5 times now but I misread your post and thought you were having a dig at me! I am a tw&t!

See last paragraph of my above post Poshie. Seems like your ex is a c*ckle and that infact he doesnt deserve to see them anyway!

Having seen St Lards post above and your comment I cannot help but pass my own comment. I know I know nothing in terms of facts so I say this loosely, but you saying that your interpretation of your ex's current and previous state of mind makes you wonder if he will do something similar and in turn, may lead you to reassess your arrangements with him is horsesh!t. Its things like this which make it unfair on men when the courts make their decisions on who gets custody. I dont mean to be rude, however if you had post natal depression for 5 years, it could have been argued that you may not be in a fit mental state to have got custody of your children? You say that something as discpicable as this did not cross your mind in the 5 years you had your post natal depression, yet you are quick to say the state of your ex's mind may well lead him to think like this? Did your ex use your post natal depression excuse in court when arguing the custody case (if he did argue it?). If he did not then I would argue it is because he may have believed you would offer more stability and less upheaval in terms of who gets custody. In which case, he was thinking for the benefit of his kids. If you did decide to play silly buggars with your ex over his arrangements to see his child(ren?) because you are worried he may do something similar, do you not think this in itself would frustrate and annoy him, and (going to the worst case scenario) could actually prevoke something to happen? Yes you may be bitter at your ex for whatever reason and may not get along with him now, but please dont let this get in the way of his relationship with your child. Using a child as a points scoring tool is not fair on the kid and ultimately will lead them to grow up bitter. Im not for one second implying this is the case with you Poshie, however there was a remark you made in your post which hit a bit of a nerve so thought I had to comment. Please note Poshie, I am in no way having a dig at you, just reading StLards post above and knowing there are so many blokes out there who struggle to see their kids because of women who play the system and try to get back at the bloke through their kids. For all we know your ex may have left you for someone else, never pay his way when it concerns the kids and may not be all that intrested in seeing them. So please dont take offense.

I feel for you SL. I dont have kids at the moment but when I do, should (and I hope it doesnt) the situation arise whereby I split from their mother, I would like things to be equal. Im a firm believer than kids should see both parents equally to stand a good chance of a decent upbringing. Thats not to say people brought up by single parents dont stand a chance! There are numerous times when people brought up by only one parent have gone onto be better people than those with two. I cant help but think that when it comes to the courts, women tend to get it easy which leaves blokes like you short changed. The fact she is taking your money intended for you child and spending it herself is a farce. If there was any way of actually proving this then it should be up to the courts to change things. Either enforce her to stay living local for your sake (in terms of your relationship with your child), reduce your contribution if she can afford to spend your money on her, or change the amount you get to see your kid.

I heard an interesting comment over the weekend re offside's. That there should be a second lino in each half on the opposite touchline from the current one. If you think about it, the job of a lino is near on impossible to get exactly right. He cannot physically look at one thing (when the ball is being played) while also looking at when the player makes his run and is in an offside position. Ok so he can get it pretty accurate which is how its survived up to now, but I feel a second lino would be a very good step forward. You arm Linoo 1 with a bleeper which he presses as the ball is played and lino 2 has an earphone and hears when the bleeper is pressed. Its then his job to decide if the striker is in an offside position when he hears the bleeper. This way he can be directly in line and should limit mistakes further. Im gonna take it on dragons den. 10% for £300,000!

I hope that wasnt a dig at me

Ahhh, how sweet, you can take a dump while Kitty does too!

Ah, forgot about Pekhart...

You're not seeing my original point. I was not saying Jan having decided to change your formation, here is what I think you should do and who you should play. I was saying I dont think he was right to deploy 4-2-1-2-1 or 4-3-3 whichever way you look at it from the start. He should have started with 4-2-2 and those would be the players I would pick for each position based on a fully fit squad.

3? Llana can play in the middle, out wide or off the front man as shown so far this season. I firmly believe with a player like John as his partner, he would do well upfront. He is skillful and quick and has proven he can finish the ball. Surman (if that was one of your other ones) has proven he is better as a wingback or full back than a central midfield player. I actually think he has done well as a full back. Rudi - I admit he is a left sided player and playing him on the right is out of position, however, having a talent as good as his available, I would prefer to play him and play him out of position than have him sat rotting in the resi's. He can deliver a cross and is also skillfull with a good shot. He is experienced and we need this in the team. Who else are you classing as out of position then?

As James is injurred and Killer too, I wasnt saying on Sat I would have had, or come this Sat I would like to see. I know of our injurred players hence why I said 'Given the options and available staff' In other words my ideal XI

I personally cannot get away from the fact that unless they are propper wingers who love to get involved with the attack, having 1 striker with two wide men doesnt seem to work. I would rather traditional 4-4-2. Two strikers is the key. Given the options and available staff I would have the following team: Davis James / Killer / Perry / Surman Rudi / Wotton / Schneiderlin / Holmes Stern / Llana

According to Steve asked to be banned? I wonder why?

That is horrific! You could bet your wage that person is obese! Still, I would love to buy that kind of house. Think how cheap you could get it and how much money you would have added just by cleaning it!

You're not a pedant now are you Bates?! Anyway, wheres the bewbs?

Saints do jeans now too?! Is this why your TMS input has been disappointing so far today then? Your actually working!?

Cheers mate. Its not the smoothest but it does the job! Made me lol!