I love Goooooooals!

Its been a while since we had a good ruck on here and i have to say i've haven't missed them.

Sluffy wrote:Stop being such a diva.

It IS supposed to be a bit of fun on here.

I think you're missing the point sluffy. No one is saying you don't have the right to argue your point, it's the abuse you dish out while doing it that people object to.

They expect abuse from me, Johnny, Martin, Scott, Bonce etc because we're just regular posters like everyone else. But this is your site, so people expect you to be above that sort of thing.

It's the equivalent of Parky coming up to me just before the game kicks off and calling me a gobshite. He might be right, but it wouldn't be acceptable.

Groundhog day.
And it seemed such a harmless thread at the start. I might ask Breaders to mediate.
I'm still trying to get my head around KP as a Jesus figure.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Stop being such a diva.

It IS supposed to be a bit of fun on here.

I think you're missing the point sluffy. No one is saying you don't have the right to argue your point, it's the abuse you dish out while doing it that people object to.

They expect abuse from me, Johnny, Martin, Scott, Bonce etc because we're just regular posters like everyone else. But this is your site, so people expect you to be above that sort of thing.

It's the equivalent of Parky coming up to me just before the game kicks off and calling me a gobshite. He might be right, but it wouldn't be acceptable.

What abuse though?

Re-read my first post on the thread that caused Fin's initial outburst where is the abuse?

I can't believe the negative souls on here - is that abusive?

look at the context man - is that abusive?

Christ mate get a grip - is that abusive?

There was certainly no abuse intended from me - nor do I believe any was given.

It led directly to me being called 'a condescending prick' who should form my 'own cult' - which I think most would accept that to be abusive - no?


It's not like I'm new on the forum our anything - I've posted the way I have for 6 years and over 12,000 posts - people must know my style by now surely?

I've apologised if I've upset anyone it never was my intention.

I don't have an axe to grind with anyone - what's the point in having one anyway?

Life's to short.

Ok, perhaps "abuse" was too strong a word.

But to Fin's original post you replied:

Sluffy wrote:Jesus I simply can't believe how many negative souls we have on here!

Christ mate get a grip.

Surely a better way to respond would have been something like.....good post Fin but I disagree because etc etc.

I absolutely guarantee that if Kane or Reebok Trotter had posted the original post you would have responded in a much more reserved manner.

Like it or not, you are the figurehead of this site and people will take what you say far more personally than any abuse I or anyone else gives them. And at a time when we need every poster we can get, I don't see how responding in this manner helps matters.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Stop being such a diva.

It IS supposed to be a bit of fun on here.

I think you're missing the point sluffy. No one is saying you don't have the right to argue your point, it's the abuse you dish out while doing it that people object to.

They expect abuse from me, Johnny, Martin, Scott, Bonce etc because we're just regular posters like everyone else. But this is your site, so people expect you to be above that sort of thing.

It's the equivalent of Parky coming up to me just before the game kicks off and calling me a gobshite. He might be right, but it wouldn't be acceptable.

As if you left me out of your list..

Yes, big mistake on my part.

Apologies, you are an abusive bellend as well.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Ok, perhaps "abuse" was too strong a word.

But to Fin's original post you replied:

Sluffy wrote:Jesus I simply can't believe how many negative souls we have on here!

Christ mate get a grip.

Surely a better way to respond would have been something like.....good post Fin but I disagree because etc etc.

I absolutely guarantee that if Kane or Reebok Trotter had posted the original post you would have responded in a much more reserved manner.

Like it or not, you are the figurehead of this site and people will take what you say far more personally than any abuse I or anyone else gives them. And at a time when we need every poster we can get, I don't see how responding in this manner helps matters.

To be honest I don't believe anyone would find anything wrong in someone pointing out the obvious - that we do have many negative souls on here - or that saying to someone to 'get a grip' is in anyway patronising whether it came from you, me or the man in the moon.

And of course I would have said the same to Kane or RT - it's not as though I've actually said anything to be ashamed of or that was even remotely contentious.

As for being the site's figurehead, I doubt most people see me like that - certainly not with all the abuse that as come my way since Nuts started.

I simply try to put things back as fair and as reasonably as I can when things crop up and listen to what others may say.  It's not an exclusive or executive position, anyone can stand up and say what they think - it's just usually left to me to do so more often than not.

I've always done it in the open, seldom if ever delete posts or lock threads and give fair and honest reasons of how I see things - anyone can do that.

So if anyone wants to be the site's figurehead and sort out all the shit when it happens then please feel free to do so.

I certainly never asked to be it.

I have to agree with Nat on this one Sluffy, you do respond differently to some posters and can come across as patronising at times. Like it or not people do see you as the person who owns the site whether you do or not and that does carry some responsibility when responding to other posters.
 
You always say nuts is paid for the next 3 years but it will be pointless if no one actually posts on here.

All this reminds me of folk who go to football matches only to spend more time goading and abusing opposition fans and stewards rather than watching the game. Mind you, they probably find heated arguments more entertaining and rousing than the tepid stuff served up on the pitch, judging by last Saturday's performance!

Everyone likes a good argument, people just don't like to admit it.

On the pitch my favourite games have always involved a good punch up. McGinlay against Wolves (more than once) and Todd/Collymore.

If Wanderers could guarantee us a punch up every week the ground would be packed.

Todd vs Collymore was my favourite, it was right in front of me and it was a proper punch up, not handbags like most football fights 

It's a bit quiet on here so time for an update...

Our 4 strikers have scored a combined total of 3 league goals for Bolton this season and contributed only 1 assist. A solitary Clough goal the only change since Feb 17.

Le Fondre
Goals: 2
Assists: 0

Wilbraham
Goals: 0
Assists: 1

Walker
Goals: 3 (Forest)
Assists: 1 (Forest)

Clough
Goals: 1
Assists: 0

.......And yet we sold our leading goalscorer! Did any other club sell their top goalscorer in the January window?  Does the transfer fee outweigh the possible cost of relegation due to a lack of goals? Who else looks like scoring? Can our defence keep baling us out?

Fin, are you able to tell me how many assists Madine was credited with this season before he left?

I know everyone hated the football we played with him leading the line but this season is about survival, after which we could begin to change to a more cultured style.

He might at least have been useful as an impact sub when all other approaches are failing, as per Giroud...

£6m for Madine had to be accepted, regardless of league position.

He was an average player having a decent season, but £6m was silly money.

Results haven't dipped since he left, if we go down it won't be because of this sale.

Okocha wrote:Fin, are you able to tell me how many assists Madine was credited with this season before he left?

Goals:10
Assists: 5

Natasha Whittam wrote:£6m for Madine had to be accepted, regardless of league position.

He was an average player having a decent season, but £6m was silly money.

Results haven't dipped since he left, if we go down it won't be because of this sale.

Agree we were right to accept the money for him. The fact that we didn't replace him was a huge mistake though and could well lead to relegation.

finlaymcdanger wrote:

Okocha wrote:Fin, are you able to tell me how many assists Madine was credited with this season before he left?

Goals:10
Assists: 5

Thanks for this answer, Fin. 
Shouldn't have been sold unless we had a worthy, ready-made replacement lined up. Those we've brought in simply and obviously can't do the job.