sadoldgit

Rupert never had the fans to begin with. He was roundly hated after the reverse take-over and because he was from the City and not a football man.

I thought he was being courted by some major Italian clubs? Or was that just in his mind?

Three things are assured. Death, taxes and daily whining posts from Batman.

And no matter how we do there will be posters looking for something to beat the club up over.

There was speculation in Spanish publication Don Balon.

Collymore was basically released. Media reports today that Real Madrid and Barcelona are now interested in VVD. As 'Arry might say, proper football clubs.

No matter what happens there will be hundreds of posts slagging off Les or Ralph or Kat or all three. It is the way of things here. Anyone who runs a business or has spent time in management knows that you have to be flexible. Things change and you need to be able to react according to the differing circumstances. I don't believe that there was a plan to sell VVD this summer. The plan might still be to try and keep him. But with him kicking off and playing the spoilt brat the Board have to make the best decision they can for the club going forward. That might mean selling and it might mean selling to Liverpool. That will **** many people off, but they don't run the club and they are not privy to what is going on behind the scenes. That will not matter though because some will see it as a sell out. Personally, if he is going to go, I want it to be for the most money. If that is to Liverpool, so be it. I would prefer to see the club stay firm and not sell him this year, but the Board make that call and that will do what they think is best, no matter what the fans think.

Even though he was spot on with his previous post?

If VVD is as you say, an absolute c*nt, why is a bitter pill? Krueger said that we didn't have to sell. He didn't say that we wouldn't sell. If VVD has turned into another Fonte perhaps it is best for both parties if he moves on. Not a bitter pill. Just common sense.

As apposed to anything negative happening at SFC being down to Les Reed? I love the way you LR naysayers are turning the brattish behaviour of an ego driven minor sports star with an over inflated opinion of himself into the fault of the man who gave him a large payrise (that he was happy to accept) a year ago. LOL

Did we? I thought the FA decided that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed (LOL).

They do hold all the cards. If he doesn't play he makes himself look stupid and damages his international career. Do you really think he wouldn't play for a whole season?

I'm with you re Palace. I lived in the area for many years and whilst they have a solid support base, many of the locals support the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea. Man Utd etc. I cant see them being a 50k club anytime soon.

Excellent post. Spot on. I would say though if you come on here to get a whiff of anything it is more likely to be bullsh*t.

Maybe you would vote for Corbyn because you are sick to death of a party who are self serving and look after their buddies and want to see a party in power who will think about the majority rather than the minority. Austerity was a choice forced on us. The public sector have been hammered whilst those doing the hammering voted themselves a decent pay increase (funny that the non-existent money tree appears at certain times and not at others). I will turn your question around, why the hell would you vote Tory? Change is coming, but not soon enough.

Not if the reported £16m fee is true.

He said one of the first names, not the first name.

We are being linked with plenty of players in the media. Ok, 95% of the rumours are BS but I don't think we need worry about no further transfer activity inwards for a while yet.

No, of course not. But it just follows the usual line of thinking up a worst case scenario and flogging it to death. Still, on the plus side, we have signed one senior player so at least we know we will not go through this window without signing anyone.

Hired by Puel or the club? If they didn't think he was doing a good job why would they keep him, despite what some on here who are supposedly ITK will have us believe.

Right this is my lot with you hypo. You are a boring little tick and if I am bored you can bet dozens of others are too. If you are man enough, lets take this to the beef thread on Sotonians. I doubt if you will but it is better than this tedious circular argument here. As you responded to my previous post I will respond to that, but no more from you on this thread on this forum. 1. You were the one who said lots of people. If you say something like that you need to substantiate it. Yes it is tedious, but if you are not prepared to back up a claim, don't make it in the first place. I'll help you out. You, CB Fry and Whelk (none of whom have a great deal of credit). So let's have some big hitters. By the way, the Maidstone claim was completely twisted. By the belt I assume you mean the bit where some of you tried to pretend that the German army were not Christians (and plenty of people came on with evidence that they were) and Hopkins, well we shall come to that next. While you are at it, let us have the list of names of posters on here who are apologists for the terrorists (yes, another of your strange yet unsubstantiated claims). My point was an still is, if the teachings of the Koran are so entrenched in violence, why are the vast majority of Muslims peaceful? Yes Christian have performed many abhorrent acts too. Is that not true? Many people in the enlightened West still have old fashioned views about women and gays. Is that not true? No terrorist organisation has ever been defeated by the military. You still haven't explain to any degree of satisfaction how we are going to defeat bedroom based terrorists here with the army or the air force. Many senior politicians have made the point that peace with the extreme elements of Islam will only eventually be achieved by dialogue. I am not the only one saying that. Yes, a great many Nazis, including the hierarchy were Christians. You can pretend they weren't. It doesn't change history. I didn't say that Hopkins comparing herself to Jesus meant she was a Christian. I did say there was plenty of evidence that she had been raised as one and was raising her own daughter as a Christian. I am not inclined to look, you made the claim, you back it up. 3. You had an extensive go at me when I said that we would not beat the terrorists with the military. In fact I think your point at the time was that we would have to kill them all. You said that my view on Islam was invalid because I didn't have any Muslim friends (and because you have a Muslim uncle your view carried more weight). I queried on many occasions why you were getting on my case when there was a clear racist here that you were ignoring. At the time both you and CB Fry were trying to pretend I was making that up. 4. When I called Katie Hopkins on her assertion that Muslims were not doing enough to renounce or combat terrorism, not only did you defend her position, you also muddied the point by taking it off on a weird tangent about her not being a Christian. Please don't pretend that you didn't. I wasted many precious moments of my life defending myself from you. 5. I have never said that a desire for Muslims to do more is racism. I said what do you expect them to do if they don't know anything in the first place? According to the security forces it seems that plenty who do know things do come forward. There was also a big march in London by Muslims against terrorism at the time we were arguing about this point but you chose to ignore that. 6. More moderate things? What is more moderate than not we are at danger from a small minority, not the huge majority FFS? 7. Your very strange view that my beliefs do "normal Muslims" more harm than good is beyond belief. I am not part of the problem you total fruit cake, the terrorists are the problem. So then, no more of this nonsense, come and find me on Sotonians and we will give the good folk here a welcome rest.

That reminds me, where is your list of apologists for terrorists on here?

Lots? Ok I know that you never, ever substantiate any of these types of outpourings, but let's have a list please. Interesting to see you mentioning Sour Mash at last. As far as I know you have only challenged him once in the whole thread. A case of right wing extremists sticking together maybe? So then, I am the opposite side of SM and live within an echo chamber. I know you feel aggrieved when I say that normal Muslims are no more responsible for the terrorist acts than you or Sour Mash, but what exactly do you think that my "close minded" ideology is? You have jumped down my throat because I have said that we will not beat these terrorists by military means, you have jumped down my throat because I am not best buddies with a Muslim, you jump down my throat because I have been calling out a clear racist (despite you saying earlier there were no racists on this thread), you took Katie Hopkins side when I said she was out of order when she had a go at Muslims for not doing more against the terrorists. It sounds to me the only reason you are having a pop at me is because you have got a thing against Muslims. You pretend to support the non extreme element but in actual fact you have issues with them (do you remember being thankful that your wife wasn't a practising Muslim - does that mean you wouldn't have married her if she was?). When this thread started I was pretty much on my own. Thankfully since those early days, may more have come on saying exactly the same things (although you only pick me up and not them) so let us not pretend I am the only one speaking up for normal Muslims. It is a shame that there aren't any actual Muslims here to speak up for themselves, but someone has to, given the drivel that some of you spout. You have no backbone hypo. You have completely bottled it on Sotonians where you just lurk occasionally and vote me down before running back here where you feel safer but still get picked up by posters who see you for what you are. I'll say one thing for Sour Mash, at least he has the bottle to come out and say what he really believes. You get away with it here (just) you don't get away with it on Sotonians that is why you have crawled back under your stone there.

Look at by whom. I rest my case.