Wes Tender

1/10 Southsea Skate This is what you posted back at the end of August and you have continued to lambast Puel ever since. I don't think it would be a loss if you didn't renew your ST, (if indeed you even have one.)

The highest level that they are ever likely to achieve with fan ownership is the third division. The only way that there will be wider fan ownership is if other clubs follow them into near oblivion financially

You've obviously forgotten about Lee Todd.

Totally agree and said much the same on the post match thread. Despite some setbacks with crucial injuries, it hasn't turned out to be a bad season and the future looks bright under Puel.

To have your goalkeeper and central defenders as the main man of the match candidates gives a false impression of way the match went. Certainly they are the most worthy of nominees for their performances, Forster producing three or four superb saves to keep a clean sheet and Yoshida just keeps on growing in stature and confidence in V.V-D's absence. He has intelligence and a calm command and Stephens is blossoming alongside him into a reliable pairing. Looking at the game as a whole though, we were totally dominant in the first half with amazing possession stats and the commentators full of praise for our one touch passing and our rapid movement. West Brom being a typical Pulis team, the expectation might have been that our makeshift midfield could have been bullied by their big strong rivals, but as it turned out, they were chasing shadows most of the time. Any pre-match trepidation because Romeu and Davis were absent was proven groundless, as Hojbjerg and Clasie were both very able deputies alongside J. W-P who had a quieter game. West Brom were pinned back for much of the match because we were always capable of causing them problems with our width, with the pace and crossing ability of Bertrand and Cedric out wide and the pace and guile of Redmond and Tadic up front with Long. Long was off colour with poor finishing, but his pace and movement still provides a threat for the ball to be cleared from defence over the top. To win against a team like West Brom away despite the absence of several key players was a great achievement, but it allows us great optimism looking ahead to next season. We have great squad depth and could really fly next season if we keep V. V-D, Cedric, and Gabbiadini and have a fit again Austin, Targett and Pied to add extra depth and variety. Towards the close of the season, it is timely to assess Puel's contribution and to reflect that he is to be credited for blooding several academy players and allowing them to develop into solid squad members capable of slotting into the team seamlessly. Despite some troughs along the way, the season has been one of reasonable success, bearing in mind the number of fixtures because of our European venture and the number of injuries we have endured. Without the distraction of Europe next season, if we can keep the key players, we could put together a challenge for the top six again, or dare we hope to advance still higher?

No, you didn't simply point out that the contrast was far less sharp than presented by Batman. You are incapable of simply saying anything. You are a verbose windbag, so full of your own self-importance that you fail to realise that if there is anybody on this forum who dissimulates and deflects, it is you. You are the master of it. More insults and you look ever more juvenile. As a rule of thumb on here, you should consider that if you used this sort of infantile playground stuff to insult somebody you were talking to in a pub, you would have had your face rearranged long ago.

2014 was before the election in which Cameron had promised a referendum on our membership of the EU, so totally irrelevant to the point that Batman made. My link was to their statement made during the referendum campaign, which as I said, was used as part of project fear, and what I suspect Batman referred too. If there is the prospect that they might have to battle tariffs, then they had better form a queue with other German industrial giants to knock on Merkel's door. If she is still their Chancellor, that is.

As usual, you're so far up your own arse, Mr. Consultant, that you are totally blinkered to the simplicity of the matter. Batman was contrasting Siemens' position during the referendum campaign when they hinted strongly that future investment in the UK could be affected by a vote to leave the EU, with the current position post referendum which gave a much more optimistic assessment of their future plans. You can't just argue against something based on a before and after situation and then choose to totally ignore the before side of it because it doesn't suit you. It just makes you look ridiculous. I haven't got anything on my plate causing me concern, especially not some narcissistic keyboard warrior who has to resort to puerile name-calling to get his jollies. And it isn't only me you do it to; it's pretty well anybody who disagrees with you. Any Brexiteer is a "kipper", others are denigrated as Baldrick, or other childish names. You don't seem to realise how badly your credibility is knocked by such infantile behaviour. If anybody is a bit of a joke, it is you. You're in danger of becoming a figure of parody.

So what Batman said was substantially correct.:

You're quite right, despite the attempt from Shatlock to deflect from what they said during the referendum campaign by references to fruit picking and culinary practices. Here is the original actual link from Siemens pre-referendum that Remoaners like him gleefully quoted as part of project fear. https://www.siemens.co.uk/en/news_press/press_releases/britain_in_eu_statement_from_siemens_plc.htm

In the meantime, let's all brighten the good mood of recent events still further, by having a good belly laugh at Mr Juncker's expense. Here is the measure of the tinpot clown he has become, an embarrassment to the EU and good enough reason on its own for departing from an organisation run by the likes of him. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/watch-jean-claude-juncker-threatens-promote-break-usa/ https://order-order.com/2017/03/30/polish-mp-complains-jean-claude-druncker/

All now becomes clear.

If you read more carefully, I said that you typified the sort. Bullseye from Hutch though. You're a consultant.

Hutch: Shatlock: You are the sort! You absolutely typify the sub species, although I'm not surprised that you lack the self-awareness to recognise it.

Quite. That's a scenario completely beyond the comprehension of Shatlock, due to his blinkered and limited imagination.

You really have no idea, Timmy. I'm privately educated, run my own business, am a lifelong Conservative voter and if I read any newspaper it is the Telegraph. But if it suits your leftie agenda to pigeon-hole and categorise people to comfort yourself that anybody who voted to leave the EU couldn't have had the intelligence to make the right decision, then I can tell you that it is the likes of you, Verbal and Shatlock who have been a great help to the Brexit campaign. All over the country, there are your arrogant, superior, snide and effete leftie equivalents, and during the referendum campaign they will have annoyed, bored and insulted their work mates and acquintances to the extent that many of them will have concluded that if the likes of you supported remain, then their natural position must be on the other side. I am delighted to see though that you three in particular are taking the triggering of Article 50 so badly, and that you are reduced to your juvenile little tirade of insults in an attempt to mitigate the hurt you are feeling.

I can understand that as an ardent remoaner you're hurting badly today, so I'll excuse the preposterous notion you are espousing that everybody can be lumped together as UKIP supporters if they support some list of outdated policies that pre-date the formation of UKIP by some decades. I'm surmising that that list would get quite a lot of support among your chums in the Labour Party, well at least the blue collar members, not the London liberal elite branch, of course. Once a leftie, always a leftie, eh?

I'm not a kipper and I doubt that GM is either. Do you believe yourself as a remoaner to be known for your humour? If so, you are deluding yourself, me old fruit.

So was the monarchy then, so I don't hold it against him. Handel became a naturalised British citizen, having lived here for a substantial part of his life. Had he been here now, no doubt we would allow him to remain with the other 3 million EU citizens currently residing in the UK.

Certainly worth cracking open a bottle of bubbly this evening.

45% of pro-Brexit MPs were concerned enough to sign a letter complaining about BBC bias against Brexit. Don't you think that significant, little leftie?

I had written my post before yours but was called away and then posted it not having seen yours. It is all typical stuff from them, dismissing anything they disagree with as being from an unreliable source and getting in the childish digs about the lack of intelligence of anybody who opposes their views.

It didn't take long for the juvenile insults to surface, did it? Where have I been proved wrong? I have already indicated that the number of MPs complaining is unprecedented but of course I am not in the least bit surprised that you belittle the significance of the numbers. A little more thought from you would lead you to realise that coming up with a percentage figure based on a binary position is naturally going to be flawed in a situation like this one. Naturally as this complaint was about bias against Brexit, then it follows logically that it is highly unlikely that there will be complaints from the Remoaner MPs whose position is favoured by the bias and who constitute a majority in the House. I'm surprised that this hadn't occurred to somebody as super-intelligent as you believe yourself to be.

Am I not allowed to read the many incidences detailed on News-watch and agree that many of them to varying degrees provide ammunition for complaints about bias? When you provide a link to some article espousing a Project Fear doom and gloom scenario, you presumably would not contend that generally one single opinion in the article painted an accurate picture of the whole thrust of it, would you?

You mean like all the stupid claims that couldn't be substantiated by Project Fear? I posted a link in the first instance to an article detailing that over 70 MPs had signed a letter complaining of BBC bias against Brexit coverage. But have it you own way; there is no bias whatsoever and all of those MPs signed the letter for no palpable reason at all. But assuming that they felt strongly enough that they had good reason to complain, then I very much doubt that they were compelled to because they each had a single incident in mind. So why can't I equally believe that there have been several instances? It has been a constant drip, drip,drip. You can get your head around that concept, can't you?