egg

And they've cancelled the John Peel stage at Glastonbury this year too.

Rod

Boat

Yes. And I understood them. You plainly didn't. I see that you're banging on about the pile on club still. It seems like you're the leader of the gang of the 'pile on' support for the bloke. Well done you.

I think it's a case of the more vitriol he fires off, the more wound up he gets. It ain't gonna change a thing on the ground - he's edging himself nearer to a coronary, bit we're still out of the EU. As a wise man said, "what is anger". The answer, of course, "it's a punishment you give yourself for someone else's mistakes".

Uniform

Yep... accuse other people of making assumptions, but make assumptions that fly in the face of facts. I'd love to understand why people are desperate to fight the blokes corner.

And friending the lad when he was a kid, then getting him the job he wanted, then making the first move on him in his dressing room, then lying about it, then conceding that the lad is vulnerable, etc. But yeah, you twist the facts to suit your narrative SoG.

Street

Team

I'm not wrong on any count. My only assumption is that a young man now described as 'vulnerable' by Schofield is likely to have been vulnerable as a kid. Indeed, any young person desperate to get into a career is vulnerable to any person helping them. They're also vulnerable when that person makes a move on them - Schofield says that he made that move. The 'pile on' waffle is odd. People disagree with you. That ain't a pile on. As for the Cheryl Cole thing, that's desperate. She isn't 40 years older than Payne, she didn't befriend him to get him into a job, etc, etc.

Yep. And then there's SoG confused by my post...wtf he's confused about is anyone's guess.

Behave. He friended the lad when he was a kid. Gained his trust. Got him a job. Made the first move. On a kind assessment he abused a position of trust, something he all but acknowledges in the BBC interview. On a balanced assessment he knew exactly what he was doing, and got what he wanted in the end. In the BBC interview he describes the lad as 'vulnerable'. The fact is that the lad always was. Anyone defending this bloke should hang their heads, and playing the homophobia card is pathetic.

Customer

He is class. Has the knack of hitting and not getting hit. My only concern is how he's being managed - he's not been busy enough, and should have had enough bouts by now to be pushing at (or holding) a British or even European title.

Yep. He was in a position of trust. Not quite like the head of a sixth form banging a student he'd taught, but not a million miles away from that.

Our farmer's additional costs must be bloody huge if they cost more than shipping Oz meat etc across the world.

Again

Seems odd that after the costs of import, Oz produce can undercut ours. The weak pound is undoubtedly a factor, but if we're efficient, we should be able to undercut imports from a developed country.

I'll leave there mate. Assuming that we get our way on arrivals, and what we want on departures, is arrogant and naive.

So you're saying this only works one way. Us having to offer what people want is as relevant as people having to offer what we want. The arrogance of our fans is priceless.

So we get Martin anyway if we don't offer what they want? Is that what you're saying?

So would we be "dicks" if West Ham won't pay more than £25m for JWP, and their fans think that's generous, or does this only work one way?

Who says they'll get the same compensation in a month? None of us have any idea about the terms of his contract and any release clause. My point though remains - we have dinlos on other threads saying that we can't negotiate properly if we don't get £45m+ for JWP, and other people saying we should absolutely get Martin for what we want to pay, but that Swansea are "dicks" etc for holding out. Just a tad stupid.

If we were in their position and rolled over you'd be moaning that we're pushovers. If another club does it, they're being dicks. Bless.