Abdoulaye's going t'Souk transfer thread

[KeyserSoze]

Quade Taylor signs, apparently

http://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/quad ... 88382.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BWFC_Insane]

He isn't saying I'm buying three and selling three. He's saying he would like three

Listen. I couldn't give a feck if he means he's going to paint his bollocks blue. You said that I couldn't find quotes relating to Dougie saying three in - three out. I have provided those quotes several times now and am quite frankly getting bored to the back fecking teeth with your 'ah, but's. I didn't refer in any part to what it is that he meant beyond the situation being, quite clearly, and I'm not going to repeat this - if we bring three players in then three players have to go. It's that fecking simple!!! Why are you finding it so difficult?

I think you have a reading comprehension issue. At no point did I challenge you or anyone else to find a quote. I'd already seen the quote and knew what it said.

The initial post from riviman was asking 'where are the three coming in'.

My point was that Dougie never said three were coming in. He said we needed three in his opinion. But that is well short of saying 3 are coming in.

Which was my original point. But whatever. You decided to dig up a quote I'd already seen and seem quite angry that I don't interpret 'I believe we need three in' as anything other than the words that are there.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I see Southampton have sold another. They'll be giving Blackpool a run for their money at this rate

[Lord Kangana]

Quade Taylor signs, apparently

http://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/quad ... 88382.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sounds like an extra from Buck Rogers in the 21st Century. I like him already!

[Prufrock]

I see Southampton have sold another. They'll be giving Blackpool a run for their money at this rate

They'll have sliiighlty more cash for the rebuild though! Be interesting to see what happens there. They seem fairly confident the conveyor belt of young players is still going, so if they spend that money wisely they might do OK. On the other hand it could go very much tits up!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I see Southampton have sold another. They'll be giving Blackpool a run for their money at this rate

They'll have sliiighlty more cash for the rebuild though! Be interesting to see what happens there. They seem fairly confident the conveyor belt of young players is still going, so if they spend that money wisely they might do OK. On the other hand it could go very much tits up!

Very few wise managers when they've a large wedge of cash! Just hope they can attract a decent standard of player (lack of ambition, selling players bollocks).

[wigan white]

I see Brighton have signed Stockdale from Fulham. Wonder if they'll bid for Bogdan now???

[Bruce Rioja]

I think you have a reading comprehension issue.

What was it? 'Quotes and all that' (or something similar)purporting that at no time had Freedman referred to three in - three out. Then, when I prove you wrong you attempt, without any success, to fudge the issue. There's only one person with 'comprehension issues' on this forum as far as I can see and that's that you cannot accept something in black and white on the grounds that it doesn't tally with your preferred belief.

Now then, for the VERY last time - comprehend this, if you're able to. To bring three players in, three will have to leave. It's really not that difficult. Well, I say that..............

[wigan white]

I think you have a reading comprehension issue.

What was it? 'Quotes and all that' (or something similar)purporting that at no time had Freedman referred to three in - three out. Then, when I prove you wrong you attempt, without any success, to fudge the issue. There's only one person with 'comprehension issues' on this forum as far as I can see and that's that you cannot accept something in black and white on the grounds that it doesn't tally with your preferred belief.

Now then, for the VERY last time - comprehend this, if you're able to. To bring three players in, three will have to leave. It's really not that difficult. Well, I say that..............

Will an abacus be of any use to resolve this argument?

[bobo the clown]

I think you have a reading comprehension issue.

What was it? 'Quotes and all that' (or something similar)purporting that at no time had Freedman referred to three in - three out. Then, when I prove you wrong you attempt, without any success, to fudge the issue. There's only one person with 'comprehension issues' on this forum as far as I can see and that's that you cannot accept something in black and white on the grounds that it doesn't tally with your preferred belief.

Now then, for the VERY last time - comprehend this, if you're able to. To bring three players in, three will have to leave. It's really not that difficult. Well, I say that..............

Will an abacus be of any use to resolve this argument?

No. Two fingers should cover it.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think you have a reading comprehension issue.

What was it? 'Quotes and all that' (or something similar)purporting that at no time had Freedman referred to three in - three out. Then, when I prove you wrong you attempt, without any success, to fudge the issue. There's only one person with 'comprehension issues' on this forum as far as I can see and that's that you cannot accept something in black and white on the grounds that it doesn't tally with your preferred belief.

Now then, for the VERY last time - comprehend this, if you're able to. To bring three players in, three will have to leave. It's really not that difficult. Well, I say that..............

Ok, perhaps my 'quotes and all that' was an ambiguous statement. But it refers to DSB's long held thing about the meaning of quotes often being subtly changed by journalists in articles.

Last week being an example where some outlets took Dougie's quotes re Mark Davies as 'Bolton to keep Davies' whereas others went with 'Bolton seek Davies offers' or sommat like that.

What I meant was that the quote referred to 3 players in and 3 out, but it wasn't exactly what he said, meaning that taking it as an absolute 'we will sign three players and sell three' is not taking the quote for what it actually says.

And your final paragraph is very definitely not what he says. Because he says '3 will either leave or not play'. Which is not the same as we have to sell 3 to bring in 3.

But this is getting tedious. What he said is entirely reasonable. He wants three players some might go if he gets those in.

That however is NOT close to we are definitely signing 3. Nor is it close to 3 will leave so we can bring 3 in.

Surely that is clear? He said he wanted to sign Juke. We didn't, but that doesn't mean he was a liar. It just means that what he wants and what happens are not the same thing.

[Bruce Rioja]

That however is NOT close to we are definitely signing 3. Nor is it close to 3 will leave so we can bring 3 in.

Who in the name of the fecking blazes is saying that we're definitely signing anyone? Anywhere?

He would like to bring three in, for that to happen three will have to leave. Freedman said that - I posted the quote. And you accuse me of having reading comprehension issues? Really?

Perhaps some other forum member can explain the simple concept of three in - three out to BWFC-I in a way that I clearly can't. Any of you train puppies? That sort of thing?

[bobo the clown]

No. You're doing a fine job Bruce. Don't undersell yourself !!

[jaffka]

Fecking hell, he is obstructive on purpose.

That is called trolling.

[BWFC_Insane]

That however is NOT close to we are definitely signing 3. Nor is it close to 3 will leave so we can bring 3 in.

Who in the name of the fecking blazes is saying that we're definitely signing anyone? Anywhere?

He would like to bring three in, for that to happen three will have to leave. Freedman said that - I posted the quote. And you accuse me of having reading comprehension issues? Really?

Perhaps some other forum member can explain the simple concept of three in - three out to BWFC-I in a way that I clearly can't. Any of you train puppies? That sort of thing?

You still are misquoting. He doesn't say for three to come in three will 'have to leave'. He says that should three come in then 3 will move on OR 'not play'.

You are putting a different meaning on to what he said. At least based on how it has been written

And the initial thing I was responding to was you replying to rivimans post questioning where the three signings were and you calling Freedman a liar.

He never said we were signing three players and I was merely pointing that out.

[Bruce Rioja]

I give up.

"Misquoting" by copy & pasting exactly what it is that he, Freedman, actually said?

I haven't put a 'meaning' on anything, I've just quoted what he said - you decided to go down the interpretation route.

Quote me where I've called Freedman 'a liar'.

Nobody has said that he, or indeed anyone else has said that we're even signing one player, let alone three. Why did you feel the need to point out that Freedman has never said that we're signing three players?

Unbelievable.

[Lord Kangana]

[Lord Kangana]

Anyway the silver lining is, if these three players* don't leave, then it'll be like three whole new signings.

*Or not three players, depending on your point of view.

[StaffsTrotter]

That however is NOT close to we are definitely signing 3. Nor is it close to 3 will leave so we can bring 3 in.

Who in the name of the fecking blazes is saying that we're definitely signing anyone? Anywhere?

He would like to bring three in, for that to happen three will have to leave. Freedman said that - I posted the quote. And you accuse me of having reading comprehension issues? Really?

Perhaps some other forum member can explain the simple concept of three in - three out to BWFC-I in a way that I clearly can't. Any of you train puppies? That sort of thing?

You still are misquoting. He doesn't say for three to come in three will 'have to leave'. He says that should three come in then 3 will move on OR 'not play'.

You are putting a different meaning on to what he said. At least based on how it has been written

And the initial thing I was responding to was you replying to rivimans post questioning where the three signings were and you calling Freedman a liar.

He never said we were signing three players and I was merely pointing that out.

best I can do for you bwfci, is to say that you are literally right, there is the 'not play' option in the 'quote' . however experience suggests that super doug, uses the not play as a lever of trying to get players out of the club e.g. andrews, eagles. doesn't always work mind e.g. mears, eagles.

feck knows whether its still 1 in 1 out. its a nice sword of damocles hanging over 3 of the current set of players anyway - helps with team spirit

quite why anybody takes any notice of the gobs***e is beyond me

[BWFC_Insane]

That however is NOT close to we are definitely signing 3. Nor is it close to 3 will leave so we can bring 3 in.

Who in the name of the fecking blazes is saying that we're definitely signing anyone? Anywhere?

He would like to bring three in, for that to happen three will have to leave. Freedman said that - I posted the quote. And you accuse me of having reading comprehension issues? Really?

Perhaps some other forum member can explain the simple concept of three in - three out to BWFC-I in a way that I clearly can't. Any of you train puppies? That sort of thing?

You still are misquoting. He doesn't say for three to come in three will 'have to leave'. He says that should three come in then 3 will move on OR 'not play'.

You are putting a different meaning on to what he said. At least based on how it has been written

And the initial thing I was responding to was you replying to rivimans post questioning where the three signings were and you calling Freedman a liar.

He never said we were signing three players and I was merely pointing that out.

best I can do for you bwfci, is to say that you are literally right, there is the 'not play' option in the 'quote' . however experience suggests that super doug, uses the not play as a lever of trying to get players out of the club e.g. andrews, eagles. doesn't always work mind e.g. mears, eagles.

feck knows whether its still 1 in 1 out. its a nice sword of damocles hanging over 3 of the current set of players anyway - helps with team spirit

quite why anybody takes any notice of the gobs***e is beyond me

It doesn't necessarily have to be sinister. For example he might want to move out a couple of the younger strikers on loan to get them experience if he can bring in a first team striker....

But I agree that he has isolated players in the past to get them moves. To be fair in most cases he's had to try and get their wages out. But I think sometimes they could have been better managed.

Mind as an aside I see that Eagles hasn't had any takers yet with the season only a couple of weeks away.....