De_La_Vega

I'd rather see Warnock back than Evans.

And I do not want Warnock back under any circumstances.

It being Latics, probably a flirt with both promotion and relegation before we settle in 15th.

That said, the quality of the division is consistently quite low. Walsall and Bradford don't look great shakes for instance, and they're going well. If we can add goals to the defensive solidity we have had of late then we could get up in the play-offs.

"adding goals" is clearly not an easy task however and every manager will be thinking the same thing in that regard.

I just don't get it clearly.

I cannot understand how with all the towering intellects on display here, nobody seems able to comprehend a world where the answer is not yes/no.

Why did the police outside open the gates? Because they were evil? Stupid? Lazy? Saw an opportunity to crush some football fans?

The decisions made by the police stemmed from something, and from my experience of football it will have been the situation outside the ground. In my experience that atmosphere can be toxic, back then I'm pretty sure evidence suggests things were worse.

In my mind I cannot see my way to a scenario where there is no culpability whatsoever on fans outside.

Oh, and just to clarify, that is not blaming them or whitewashing the police. Just in case anyone strugglesto grasp that point.

Who on earth said this was caused by fans? I said that I don't believe that the fans were innocent.

Maybe it's just my sterling education, but if you try and understand the point, then you'd realise that what I am arguing is that I don't believe that fans were blameless.

That does not exonerate the police, or turn the fans into mindless hooligans. Life isn't binary, it is possible for there to exist shades of grey.

God there are some sanctimonious people on here. Why would the police changing statements have any relevance to what happened in the ground?

Let's not forget that similar "scumbag" police were jumping into burning stands in Bradford to pull people out.

Until I see evidence I will always doubt that the fans outside were completely innocent. Unless those people were complete saints, in utter opposition to the general climate of fans at the time.

As my original post did not imply though, noneof that exonerates the police.

Divisive post alert.

I cannot believe that the fans are entirely innocent. For the court to find so suggests to me that this is an effort to make the whole thing go away.

Never in my life have I seen large numbers of fans outside turnstiles and not seen agitation at the very least. Multiplied by thousands for an FA Cup tie and I find that assessment to be hugely unlikely.

I'd not mind Holmes-Dennis, he has a bit about him that might be polished up by playing some games. Having Wilson is a big bonus though - the guy has a bit of class about him.

Agree that he needs agro alongside him though.

I was about to contribute my wisdom until I saw someone advocate getting rid of James Wilson and keeping Holmes-Dennis. Remarkable.

I must have dreamt that there was some stinging criticism of Liam Kelly on this thread.

Surely not even Latics fans could be so daft?

Absolutely summed up the issue with the Euro debate right there.

Every economic point that previous posters (not me by the way, mine was opinion) have made has been answered with passion, innuendo, hearsay and a complete lack of anything like factual analysis.

"permanent stagnation" and "when the Euro collapses into a maelstrom of :censored:" being two points in case. European countries are not permanently stagnating, and the collapse of the Euro is a vague fear of something which may happen. At which point our Government could vote out anyway.

So basically; overwhelming economic opinion versus a gut-feeling and you're going with the gut. Bravo.

This referendum should be one of the easiest questions in history, but as ever the English public are contriving to bollocks it up.

Leaving the EU would be the single most stupid thing Britain has ever done, not because we couldn't survive it but because it would basically be an entire country ignoring all the evidence and voting for a jump into the dark because we are upset at something we cannot define.

Quite aside from that, I actually feel a kinship with Europeans which I am surprised more people don't share, and finally the EU project has fundamentally ended warfare in one of the most turbulent areas in the World. What's not to like?

Didn't realise that I'd fallen into an alternative dimension of random comment.

Liam Kelly is not more than a League 1 football and has an inability to find a player in the same shirt? What half-baked drivel, as Harry Enfield would say.

Seriously though, that is monstrously ridiculous.

It's not here though. In the glorious Islamic State you can lob gays off cliffs, that ok here now? It's illegal to be gay in many countries.

 

Oldham has a massive issue with the grooming of 13,14,15 year old kids by adults. It's f*cking appalling as is any justification of it.

What a debating tactic! Accuse anyone you suspect of having a different opinion of being an apologist for sexual abuse!

For the record, I am not attempting to justify anything done by Adam Johnson, I am just trying to sift through your opinions to see whether you think that he's a disgusting sexual predator or just a douche bag.

 

Can I choose both?

You can, but I'd be interested to know why you think he's a deviant sexual beast, when an awful lot of the world would see his choice as being acceptable. In Japan, for instance, the age of consent is well south of 16.

 

But not shagging child slaves if I'm reading you right?

You've got to leave yourself a little leeway right?

(p.s. I am not actually condoning sexual abuse of child slaves, this is not a serious comment).

 

Well, that's good to hear.

I did think it'd set your mind at rest.

Slavery and women's emancipation I could take or leave.

(p.s. This is not meant to be taken literally).

P.s. I am officially against slavery and child-labour, just to confirm.

Well on your basis, slavery, sticking kids up chimneys, droit de seigneur, denying women the vote and serfdom could all be perfectly reasonable.

 

As you say yourself, you are just stirring the pot.

Well what I am really trying to understand is the definition of "disgusting".

By the definition of the law that was posted earlier it seems that there is a distinction between 13, where girls are presumably considered to be physically immature, and 14-15 where I would guess the distinction is that they are emotionally too immature.

Given that in the past girls were routinely married off as soon as they reached sexual maturity, and there is evidence that men are wired to chase younger women as being capable of carrying their children and hence perpetuating the man's genetic legacy... does that mean that Adam Johnson is a reprehensible little :censored:, or is he a "disgusting" sexual deviant?

Oh my giddy aunt

What's wrong with asking a question? I'm interested to hear the opinions.

As I love stirring the pot... He has been described as "disgusting" pretty regularly on here. However she was 15, which a few hundred years ago would have been an age which would have seen her having kids. It is only 1885 that the UK raised the age of consent to 16.

Playing devil's advocate, could it not be argued that what he did is socially unacceptable, but actually pretty standard human behaviour? Leaving aside the morality of his having a missus and all that.

So we sold the sell-on clause, fair enough.

Understand why some would be upset, but it may be that Brentford wouldn't have sold with a 10% clause still active. We can't be sure.

Having come to a thread about 2,000 posts long quite late in the day. Am I to assume that we sold Tarky's sell-on clause before he was sold, thus costing us money?

I should have 2 more pay on the day revellers, which by my shonky maths has us outnumbering the home fans.

Game on!

Don't quite understand all the hysteria about Philiskirk. He is a number 10 all day long, and very good at picking up space and playing short balls around corners to try and bring runners into play.

His problem is that he doesn't score enough, and he only plays well when the players around him suit that style. For instance; Dayton's best work was all in conjunction with Philiskirk because they were both intelligent with decent movement.

The question about his performance should be; are there enough goals elsewhere in the team to accommodate a good quality number 10 who may only bag you 6 or 7 league goals.