Bolton miss out on ex-Newcastle star Papiss Cisse in loan deal!

1 - I've looked it up and can't find anywhere it says he went on strike, the nearest I can find is him sitting out Celtic last match after a bid had come in for him - pretty standard stuff to prevent injury before a transfer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45377409

2 - If it wasn't sanctioned then under British law it was an illegal act. I think the EFL and PFA certainly cared about this and no doubt BWFC and ST Mirren - presumably both incurred costs through such action. I would imagine KA will ensure he's not out of pocket over this.

3 - I'm happy to communicate by bullet points if you wish but I don't see any point in continuing this debate just because you again simply wish to be argumentative just for the sake of it.

May I also remind you of how Glos recently posted his view of you and your never ending arguments.

It does you no credit and lessons the number of people who will engage you on future topics that you probably are genuinely interested in discussing.

1. Dembele walked out of training, but I’m just giving you a recent event you can look up Costa, Tevez, Berbatov or Van Hooijdonk if you insist on dragging this out. 

The point is ‘illegal strikes’ - as you’d call them - happen all the time and legal action is never taken up by the clubs. So your point that Iles should have buried the story for this reason is irrelevant.

2. Why would the EFL care, a pre season game with a Scottish team is nothing to do with them. And the PFA certainly haven’t come out against the players, so I think you’re talking rubbish again.

3. Don’t remeber Glos mentioning ‘never-ending arguments’ - that tends to be just you when you’ve worked out you’re incorrect but too proud to admit it.

Sluffy wrote:Christ you would argue for arguements sake until the cows came home - no wonder most people swerve you on here.

Not quite true:

https://boltonnuts.forumotion.co.uk/t17885-most-annoying-poster-2017-18-season?highlight=annoying

T.R.O.Y wrote:1. Dembele walked out of training, but I’m just giving you a recent event you can look up Costa, Tevez, Berbatov or Van Hooijdonk if you insist on dragging this out. 

The point is ‘illegal strikes’ - as you’d call them - happen all the time and legal action is never taken up by the clubs. So your point that Iles should have buried the story for this reason is irrelevant.

2. Why would the EFL care, a pre season game with a Scottish team is nothing to do with them. And the PFA certainly haven’t come out against the players, so I think you’re talking rubbish again.

3. Don’t remeber Glos mentioning ‘never-ending arguments’ - that tends to be just you when you’ve worked out you’re incorrect but too proud to admit it.

Christ on a bike, on, and on, and on you go - and all for your own amusement - is it any wonder I'm the last poster on here that does you the courtesy of a reply anymore?

I said what I have about the illegal strike, Iles involvement and how the right thing to do was for him not to publish the story, several weeks ago, yet only NOW you want argue endlessly about it?  Funny that, almost as though you're trying to pick a deliberate argument so you can drone on and on about it for your own fun and to the determent of everyone else's enjoyment, surely that can't be the case?

Oh wait, that's exactly what it is!

So to end all this nonsense let's follow your argument to its natural conclusion - if contracts are meaningless from a player perspective - then it would have to follow that they are meaningless to a clubs perspective also - you can't have contracts that are only enforceable by one party.

That being the case then it wouldn't matter when, or even if, Anderson paid the players wages/bonuses because - in your self-indulgent argumentative world - there are no reason for contracts in football - they are meaningless and unenforceable.  So there would therefore have been no point in having a strike by the players (illegal or official), no point in Iles writing about one, no point the PFA and EFL rocking up at the club to sort the mess out and no reason for the players to officially 'regret' their actions.

I'm not playing your game anymore, it's certainly not helping the forum, and I and the rest of the posters that make Nuts what it is, a place for everybody to have fun and enjoy, aren't here to simply provide people to argue against ad nauseam for your own personal satisfaction and gratification and fuck the amusement and enjoyment of the site for everybody else.

Sluffy, I thought you just came on here for "a laugh" and didn't take anything seriously?

Sluffy I’ll keep this short. Clearly we won’t agree on this, but I think any sane person would see that expecting the local journalist to ignore this story is ridiculous, as is you blaming him for any damage the strike caused. 

You haven’t given any coherent arguments as to why everyone else (the club, Anderson, EFL, PFA, any of the press) have failed to adopt your ‘illegal’ definition, I’ve told you clearly why it’s irrelevant.

You replied to my point about Iles and began this, not me. I remember you blaming the players at the time of the strike, I’ve either forgotten you criticising Iles or missed it. 

If posters are avoiding me as you claim I won’t lose any sleep over it, I think in reality though most of the debate on here has died off with most of the regulars having been banned or leaving. You won’t push me off here by banging on about ‘arguing for the sake of it’, I have opinion and I’ll post them when I want that’s what the sites for.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Sluffy, I thought you just came on here for "a laugh" and didn't take anything seriously?

If I did take forums seriously then Nuts would have long gone the way of sites like Bolton Banter and Burnden Aces, where the owners either got rid of the people they didn't like or allowed troll accounts to run riot.

At the end of a day for a forum to work there has to be a certain amount of integrity in it, where people know that despite whatever has gone on folk will be treated fairly and things smoothed out as best they can.

That's what I'm usually good at, it what allows things to go on that aren't allowed for long on most of the other BWFC forums still going, and it's what makes us that bit different from the rest.  Some people enjoy the various arguments and dramas that are played out on here, some don't and that's why they don't stick around for long, or get driven off.

Most times I can bring people back from going too far over the line, I can laugh at the insults thrown at me, I can keep Nuts going when all seems lost because people play games behind the scenes - but I can't do it forever and deliberate trolling/being argumentative for the sake of it, abuse and playing of people have taken its inevitable toll and made our forum quieter and less busy because of it - nearly all of it because one or two people had their own agendas and sod the enjoyment for the rest of the people that want to enjoy Nuts.

So in answer to your question, no I don't take the internet seriously, I'm much too old and from a different generation for that - but I do try to take seriously that Nuts is run as best it can for the enjoyment of the many and not just as a plaything for one or two.

If Nuts does go under like Burnden Aces and Bolton Banter then we all lose out and probably non will miss it more than those who have brought it to its knees in the first place.

Where are they going to play if we are no longer here?

That's why I do my best for ALL of us, to keep Nuts fair and reasonable for everyone to enjoy and take part and not just a playground for one or twos self indulgence and bugger the rest of us.

If that in your eyes marks me out as taking the internet seriously then maybe I do.

Sluffy, the only one throwing insults around on this thread is you.

Exactly, and the one who engages in 'never ending arguments' with Lust, but that must be different from my posts.

T.R.O.Y wrote:Exactly, and the one who engages in 'never ending arguments' with Lust, but that must be different from my posts.

Don't drag me into it - I'm enjoying the carefree banter from a considerable distance.