mikejh45

You stated categorically that AL stopped managers from picking Hunt when the team lists from both PS and PW showed this statement to be untrue. What am I getting wrong here?

You know.......I hadn't given you a moment's thought (either of you) but now you are here, you still come across as the village idiot.

According to Lee Sinnott, it was the enigma known as "Barry Owen".

All I'm doing is countering an opinion held by some. We keep hearing the same stories going around and are expected to believe them. An example is the changing room incident....some say AL charged in ranting and was grabbed around the throat by a player no longer with us, others say it never happened. Who should I believe? Do I condemn AL because of mob rule? All I'm asking for is clarity. Is that so wrong?

You didn't mention Scholes by name but the timeline points to it.

And that means what exactly? I'm assuming you can put forward a cogent argument apart from a dumb-ass emoji.

But what the f*ck is this "it" that you expect me to believe? So far, all you've put forward is anecdotal evidence and expect people to accept it as gospel. State clearly your evidence but don't just push Scholes' comments as proof positive because, from my perspective, he was using the "interference" argument to cover his managerial shortcomings.

Where's proof? This is a bit like "Young Frankenstein". Gene Wilder: "Werewolf"". Marty Feldman: "Therewolf".

You keep your nose skin, thank you very much. As yet you have offered no proof apart from 'anecdotal'.

Poetic licence, Jorvic. There are still arguments about this 'interference". I have yet to be convinced that it actually took place.

And just trotting out the argument of "interference - end of" doesn't back up your case either. So what's the difference between not selecting him to start and putting him on the bench? Surely if AL was having a direct influence as you say, then Hunt would be training with the kids and totally absent on matchdays. I'm still thinking that this interference card was just an excuse by Scholes to get out because being a manager was not what he thought it would be.

So let me get this straight... Last 3 matches of Scholes's reign (I couldn't be arsed to go back further), Hunt was a regular.....but AL was interfering so Hunt in the team flies in the face of this "interference" argument. PW takes over and AL is interfering and telling PW not to play Hunt but he is still in the match day squad. What am I missing here?

Riiiiggghht…...that's why PW played him in half his matches in his second stint.

We played Hamer with Dummigan on the right before now so why not Hamer with Mills.

Succinctly put, sir!

No problem......we have Billy.

I have in my mind this conversation between Mo & Laurent: Mo: Welcome to BP. LB: F*ck me, it's cold. Mo: And this is your office. LB: You have to be f*ckin' kidding! Mo: And if you like you need to make a call....wait 'til someone answers before you put a coin in the slot. Mo: Here is a key to the executive toilet. The blue fleece on the hook is Barry's. LB : IZAL!!! No comfy-bum? Mo: Right...next stop....I'll show you the training ground. LB: You bleedin' won't...I've got a plane to catch/.

Make him player/coach and AL saves a few dirham.

Yep, a bit...…..Monaco youth or Sunderland under 8's...….apologies, Laurent.

Nope....read it not once, not twice but thrice and I'm thinking "WTF"!!!

A bit like the Dazzler then.

Could be a mutually agreed 12 month rolling contract as per Paul Dickov.

I've seen elf division 4.....not a very high standard.

He's only packed a cabin bag.

Good news, chaps.....Neil Lennon has got the Celtic gig opening the door for David Moyes to rock up here...…..got to be true 'cos Chuckie 22 predicted it.