Transfer rumours !

Boggersbelief wrote:

Can one of you ladies create a thread solely for bitching at each other. Thanks

It already exists:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well, we might as well use this thread for something, 'cause there's fuck all chance of us signing anybody and any rumours will be patently untrue.

I blame Freedman and Gartside for that........

Who's with me?

Dear Peter and Lusty,

We (the site) are looking for articles to publish on our Facebook and Twitter sites, in an attempt to attract new members to our forum here on Nuts.

How about writing one each on Freedman - obviously one will be more pro Freedman and one more anti.

We could then publish them against each other and thus give both sides of the 'debate' at once.

Up to you how long you want to write on them  but I suggest you keep it to say half a dozen paragrahs each - as the combined article of your views would then total about 12 para's, which would be plenty for people to read and get their teeth into.

If you are both up for it then could I suggest you pm your articles to Karly directly - so that he can post them up against each other, without either of you seeing what the other one as wrote - and thus not influencing either of you on what you wanted to say.

After the article is published you can then post a follow up article each on what the other had said and have your right of reply.

How about it - are you both up for it?

If you are and the idea kind of works then maybe we can ask questions for you both to answer for follow up articles such as perhaps 'Is Freedman doing a good job under the circumstances the club finds iteslf in' or, 'What would you consider to be the minimum achievements required of Freedman this season' or something along those lines - where your replies can be set against each other - sight unseen before being published.

Go on, you're both good writers, both strong characters and it should be fun.

You know you both want too!

Good idea Sluffy.

Does this infer that Lusty is officially "Happy Clapper In Chief" on here?

I can't remember how the vote went.....

But I'm not and never have been "pro-Freedman" so it wouldn't be fair - unless you call giving the guy a fair chance to sort out the squad and then have half a season to see where we are as being "pro-Freedman".
I just thought I was being pro- fair chance.


Edit: Actually I said 10 weeks, not half a season.

It's gone very quiet.
Fess up. Who is scouring old threads to see if they can find a comment I made that could be construed as being "pro-Freedman"?

Pro - fair chance v anti - fair chance then - call it what you like - I'm more interested in getting sort of opposing views of the situation matched against each other - without either of the authors knowing what the other as said.

Are you up for it?

Hope you are.

Sluffy wrote:Pro - fair chance v anti - fair chance then - call it what you like - I'm more interested in getting sort of opposing views of the situation matched against each other - without either of the authors knowing what the other as said.

Are you up for it?

Hope you are.

That will be a very short conversation.
I'll say "give him time to settle the team down" and Peter will say "it will never get better so the sooner we act the better". 
Then we'll disagree.
Then Peter will write 400 dissertations on why it's better Dougie goes now.
By which time the 10 weeks will be up and Dougie may well already be toast.

Breadman wrote:Does this infer that Lusty is officially "Happy Clapper In Chief" on here?

I can't remember how the vote went.....

Not really, it is just that both Lusty and Peter seem to have opposite views, both are passionate, both put a lot down in words and both seem to me to match up well against each other.

I just think the idea could work well, help promote the site and take away from the myopic view that most forums seem to have where you either in the love Freedman or you hate him camps.

Just an idea for something different and novel for a change.

Nuts dares to be different and all that!

Pete wins.

Lusty's bottle's gone.


(That was a joke, by the way - nothing more.)

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
You really are a stuck record now.

Ironic post of the year!

At least Peter is consistent.
You after all are the person who told us that "the Ngog/Sordell partnership is the way forward" (and then slagged off Dougie for not picking it earlier!)  

Now that's irony!

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Pro - fair chance v anti - fair chance then - call it what you like - I'm more interested in getting sort of opposing views of the situation matched against each other - without either of the authors knowing what the other as said.

Are you up for it?

Hope you are.

That will be a very short conversation.
I'll say "give him time to settle the team down" and Peter will say "it will never get better so the sooner we act the better". 
Then we'll disagree.
Then Peter will write 400 dissertations on why it's better Dougie goes now.
By which time the 10 weeks will be up and Dougie may well already be toast.

That's the point though mate - it isn't a conversation!

You put your own views independant of each other, which are published together at the same time, and we break free of the clash of personal views bouncing back and forth all the time.

Come on mate, try it once and see how it goes.

What have you got to lose?

Breadman wrote:Pete wins.

Lusty's bottle's gone.


(That was a joke, by the way - nothing more.)

Fair enough. The thought of another Tolstoyesque diatribe on the evils of our manager is enough to turn my blood cold.

Chances of either party producing anything objective to the "go now or go later" debate? Slim to none.

And that's why I'm out.

In all honesty, I actually agree with about 90% of the sentiment you post on here regarding the reasons we are where we are and how Freedman's trying to operate with one hand tied behind his back but where we differ is on Freedman's technical ability as a "football" manager.

I know he's been given an uphill task and it can't be easy, but I can't see beyond (in my opinion) his lack of wherewithal regarding what actually happens on the pitch every week.

So I'd be no good doing it either, as that would prejudice anything positive or constructive that I would try and write about the "positives" of his tenure.

I must say I'm quite disapointed.

I thought the idea was a decent enough one and that you would at least give it one try to see how it developed.

Your choice though, obviously.

Sluffy wrote:I must say I'm quite disapointed.

I thought the idea was a decent enough one and that you would at least give it one try to see how it developed.

Your choice though, obviously.

Cut the guilt trip Sluffy. 

I'll join in if somebody starts it off.

Breadman wrote:In all honesty, I actually agree with about 90% of the sentiment you post on here regarding the reasons we are where we are and how Freedman's trying to operate with one hand tied behind his back but where we differ is on Freedman's technical ability as a "football" manager.

I know he's been given an uphill task and it can't be easy, but I can't see beyond (in my opinion) his lack of wherewithal regarding what actually happens on the pitch every week.

So I'd be no good doing it either, as that would prejudice anything positive or constructive that I would try and write about the "positives" of his tenure.

Yes but I don't think we differ on the football side of Dougie's managerial skills. I suspect he's stubborn and dogmatic and a bit naive - not good traits. If he fails to deliver I won't have any problem seeing the back of him, however...
Fact is though by hook or by crook he's delivered the best win ratio since Allardyce and then against a background of personnel changes and turmoil at the club. 
It'll be interesting to see how the squad settle down after all the comings and goings and see how Freedman does then. If he survives he'll be accused of being lucky - which would be fine by me as long as we're winning.

Sluffy! It worked.

I've got him to start writing it...... 

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:I must say I'm quite disapointed.

I thought the idea was a decent enough one and that you would at least give it one try to see how it developed.

Your choice though, obviously.

Cut the guilt trip Sluffy. 

I'll join in if somebody starts it off.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself properly but the idea is for you and Peter to start it off at the same time.

It's not Peter posts something and you reply or visa versa.

Six or so paragraphs each on your views of Freedman.  Pm them to Karly and they both get posted together at the same time.

Simple and something different than normal debates on here and elsewhere.