sadoldgit

Back in the 60’s teams used to line up 2-3-5 at KO. Gk = 1 Right back and left back 2 & 3 Two wing halves = 4 & 6 either side of the centre half = 5 The forward line consisted of two wingers = 7 & 11, two inside forwards = 8 & 10 and the centre forward = 9 The one substitute = 12 Our PE teacher used to blow his whistle every 5 minutes and if you weren’t standing in the correct place on the pitch according to your number/playing position you would get a bollocking. Both wingers and full backs would be glued to the wings. The centre half picked up the centre forward and the two wing halves would pick up the two inside forwards. Playing it out from the back meant hoofing it upfield. If you tried to play football at the back you would get a bollocking from all of your team mates and probably dropped for the next match. Passing to a man who was marked was also a big no-no and would usually result in you getting bollocked by the bloke you passed to who was marked as he would have been kicked up in the air as soon as he touched the ball (and sometimes before the ball had even reached him). The wingers had one job, stand on the half way line and when you got the ball, leg it down the wing and centre it to the big lump of a centre forward who would trade elbows with the centre half as they both tried to get their heads on the end of a sodden lump of laced up leather. The inside forwards were trickier players and would play off of the centre forwards. It was the wing halves job to kick lumps out of them. To put it even more simply, no’s 2 to 6 were there to flatten the opposite no’s 7 to 11. Leeds were the exception to this in that their no’s 2 to 11 would go out and flatten anyone within kicking/punching distance. It was all so simple then until Sir Alf Ramsey did away with wingers and played overlapping full backs in a 4-3-3 formation. It all went downhill from there (apart from winning our one and only World Cup of course).

Larios off to Malaga on loan apparently.

Shouldn’t you be milking cows and tupping your sheep?

Interesting choice of words given your strange, obsessive behaviour every time a transfer window opens. It seems like you lock yourself in the cellar and glue yourself to the phone, posting all day every day. You are like a 5 year old at Christmas, constantly speculating on what presents Santa is going to bring you and whether you will like them are not. The classic period was when you were desperate for us to sign a striker and every other post seemed to be from you for weeks, getting more and more fretful. You really need to grow up and get out more hypo.

No surprise given your weird sense of humour. Remind us again how many laughing emojis you have used on a thread about death and destruction in Gaza? You have always been an odd little man but you seem to have been joined by a number of others recently. This place is becoming more like the Ugly Inside by the day.

East stand nic throws accusations about but doesn’t substantiate them. Turkish does the same. Why is wanting to address false accusations digging a hole? At this stage Lighthouse usually splits the thread so that this crap can continue elsewhere without boring others. Now would be a good time for a thread split.

Dear god. No. I had the basic info last night and when I asked if it was part of a riot my wife said she thought it could be. My wife had second hand information yesterday and there was clearly some 2+2=5 going on. Not surprising really given the situation. She had more of an update today. The basic facts remain the same. Woman with brown skin has car windscreen smashed in city where demonstrators were assembled. If you are desperate to make a big deal of it, go ahead, but I think we have wasted too much time on it as it is.

I am not too good to apologise but you have constantly abused me today and did so on a different thread a while back so I figure that there is no point in trying to build bridges with someone who calls you a fucking plank, prick and a bellend on the Israel thread.

This place gets weirder all the time. The very people who accuse me of making things up make stuff up about me? At least have the decency to provide evidence eh? Anyway, I need to put the record straight about yesterday. The person who had her window smashed in Bristol was not in the car at the time it happened and there was no rioting going on around her car when she got to it. She was very shaken up because there had been rioting a few days previously and she was concerned that someone had deliberately targeted her car and knew which car was hers. So, no definitive link to the recent riots and a lot of fuss about nothing on here. Still, the good news is that last night wasn’t to nationwide carnage we were fearing.

And you expect me to apologise?

What? I was agreeing for a ban for myself so long as the other protagonist were banned also. I don’t disagree that I am complicit and have said many times that I will give as good as I get.

He was arrested so I expect he will be at some point.

Are the poorer children not to get breakfasts too? That was one of many plans to help under privileged children. Again, they did say that they would act in the cap when they can. Just for the record, did you speak out about it when the Tories cut it?

I agree, as long as all of those concerned are given bans too.

So you are not going to answer my questions then. Ok.

If you think that piling on to someone on an internet form is funny

Yep, I agree. I can imagine the usual suspects got to spend more times with their families then.

You think, when they are lying on their death beds drawing their final breaths, they will think to themselves, I wish I had spent more time slagging off a complete stranger on a football forum?

Why should I apologise when you continue to accuse me of lying?

Saint68, not 86, was the poster on TUI that you had a very long spat with. You remember, surely? Show the evidence where I said that you were banned for multiple logins please. I have no idea why you were banned. I made an assumption that it was for trolling but have asked you to confirm why. I assume that you know the reason. Show me where I said that you were banned for being a “cock” and for stalking. If I said it the evidence must be there eh? I wouldn’t know what it takes to be a good liar. You seem to know a lot about it though.

If you had of believed what I thought I had been accused of you would have been gullible. As it is you think it funny that I relayed here something that I had been told so I don’t think I need to apologise for anything. At least I don’t play the silly games that you do on COT. 😉

I don’t know, I thought it was an attention seeking device. Most people ITK don’t play games. They post what they know without riddles or silly cartoons. The episode in TUI involved the two of them going at it hammer and tongs, slagging each other off. It was all playground stuff, much like he does here.

If you actually read what I said I am not a liar, I just misunderstood what had been suggested. I am glad to hear that you run your farm well.

So I didn’t read this properly and misread it that I had sat next to him. My bad. Where you go wrong is when you say that it “backed up Soggys POV to the letter.” It didn’t back up my POV. It backed up what had been reported on the news item. Even with your limited capacity to differentiate between the truth and a wind up, you should be able to tell the difference and you have chosen to embellish the story to try and prove a point that doesn’t exist.

If you bother to read what I said I thought that you had said that I sat next to Parker-Bowles, which I hadn’t. Where did I say that you got banned for multiple log ins? I assumed that you got banned for trolling. If not that, what was the reason that you did get banned? I seem to recall it was after a long spat with Saint68 about who was the ITK king but appreciate some clarity as you will obviously know the reason better than I.