hypochondriac

What prompted a journalist that has released a lot of saints stories to release their positive story about January transfer dealings and other acquisitions immediately after our 9-0 loss? Coincidence?

Why did the article talking about all these acquisitions get released so soon after the 9-0 loss do you think?

Having also read this forum for years, I disagree. The majority are talking about a pattern that has been repeated for a number of windows - particularly January- where we release stories to the same select journalists about signing and then during the window itself we dampen expectations and make public the fact that we are happy with what we have. You then get the usual apologists amongst the fan base happy to white Knight for the club and its repeated the next season safe in the knowledge that the "eggs" of the world are too dumb to notice. For some reason you consider this version of events to be untrue and that the stories are invented by the same journalists every time and they just so happen to release their stories when the club need some positive pr. Weird that the last one came out after the Leicester 9-0, I wonder why that is?

I'd sign up to a strictly trade based bloc absolutely.

That isn't the perception.

I mean why would the club plant stories in the media and then end up not signing anyone? We were told by posters on here that that was a pointless thing to do, that it doesn't work, that posters don't jump to the defence of the club.

It seems you have to have an acceptable percentage of women and minorities shortlisted every year or the woek crpd on, twitter shout at you. I don't pay much attention anyway and normally the best film nominations are a load of pretentious cr*p (the sea creature love story from a few years back and birdman for example) but green book was good last year. I'd generally just give it to a woman director or and black actors every year to stop the whining.

He's better than long-Bailey though. They should elect Nandy but they won't because they are idiots.

You can't prove it was the club who planted that article, you can't prove it was the marketing department that released a PR piece. No proof so it's definitely nothing to do with the club. Definitely.

I don't think we will descend into warring accross Europe simply because political union is no longer a thing. I mean it used to just be a common market and there wasn't war then.

I think modern society and mutually assured destruction can achieve that in the future without the EU.

Disagree. I hope for an EU collapse and then a close trading bloc between separate countries which doesn't involve ever closer political union.

I'd be alright with the rayner one tbf. In other news, long-Bailey is the front runner in the latest poll. Could end Labour for a generation...

As usual you're talking complete bilge. I barely know who Katie Hopkins is, I haven't uttered her name outside of this forum since she was on celebrity big brother about ten years ago. I barely gave her a second thought till you brought her up on here. You seem intent in bringing her up on multiple occasions. Like I said it's a bit weird.

Probably not but luckily we don't have to find out and have good memories of their loyalty to our small provincial club and their skill.

I've barely mentioned either of them, you're the one who keeps referring to them (that's the third time you've brought them up this year so far.) it's a really bizarre obsession you have with them.

Yes but the problem arises because someone isn't a racist just because you call them one. It's pretty rich for someone like you to pretend this forum is just a bit of a laugh and telling people to chill out when you've been throwing around terms like racist at posters you disagree with.

Not to hand but during the election results analysis John curtice was talking about it.

The age of the average tory voter has lowered significantly.

Not sure we should take your definition of right as gospel given your history.

Do the bnp even exist anymore? Why are they caring about a Labour leadership candidate?

Well you obviously thought it was a good thing considering you tried to use it as evidence to challenge the claim that corbyn wasn't credible.

That's because Johnson was a much better candidate than Corbyn. I know it pains you but that's the truth.

B*llocks.

If you think a change of slogan would have made the difference then you're deluded. Corbyn simply wasn't credible.