you could have a point there

and if that is the case( which we will probably never know) I tend to agree with you.

But don`t think I`m going to make a habit of agreeing with you

Posted By: emmaroyds on March 4th 2011 at 20:15:09

Message Thread

Anyone get a chance to read the David Cuffley article before it vanished? (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 19:41:17
- why do folk *have* to know? for what purpose exactly, to titillate all the billy no-mates? (NCFC) - Tombs, Mar 4, 20:09:46
  - well said (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 20:17:20
    - shame it had to be said really (NCFC) - Tombs, Mar 4, 20:20:10
      - Not unsurprisingly.......tombs totally misses the point. (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:30:32
        
        that's ok, i'm not fussed with you at all. (NCFC) - Tombs, Mar 4, 20:35:19
        
        ^^^^ owned and tilted.................a rare combo. (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:36:31
        
        don't diss the tombs I'm his right hand man in waiting and I'll (NCFC) - Jumbo1, Mar 4, 20:35:00
        
        Tell your mate to leave the thinking to the big boys. (n/m) (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:37:50
        
        grrrrrr (n/m) (NCFC) - Jumbo1, Mar 4, 20:39:08
        
        this is how it starts (n/m) (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 20:31:41
        
        errr.... McNally unhappy with article.........Article pulled by Archant........ (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:35:39
        
        why should we be concerned? (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 20:41:44
- From what I can gather (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 19:46:15
  - Having read the article before it was pulled (NCFC) - KentonCanary, Mar 4, 20:56:50
  - well, they've pulled it now, so presumably they acknowledged it was out of place (n/m) (NCFC) - Worzel Scrimmage, Mar 4, 19:48:00
    - Or were they forced too?........Did one board member phone another! (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 19:57:59
      - dunno, possibly. Wouldn't think so though (NCFC) - Worzel Scrimmage, Mar 4, 20:09:58
- nothing offensive just stating that the clubs 1 paragragh statement was not (NCFC) - Jumbo1, Mar 4, 19:43:56
  - So why was it pulled? (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 19:54:17
    - It was pulled because McNasty got on their case (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 20:00:40
      - If he didnt want a fuss he shouldnt have used twitter (n/m) (NCFC) - samcd84, Mar 4, 20:39:01
        
        seems the only way people comunicate these days (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 20:45:00
      - But its bollocks........... (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:14:00
        
        yes Platt could have trousered the 25m for all we know (NCFC) - Jumbo1, Mar 4, 20:17:54
        
        'Personal reasons' meant no party wanted to make a fuss. Cuffley made a fuss. He was asked (NCFC) - matchdaypie, Mar 4, 20:52:21
    - The problem was McNally's tweets stirred the pot consdierably (NCFC) - samcd84, Mar 4, 19:58:12
      - But that seems weird because.......... (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:10:42
        
        that's a hell of a lot of speculation (NCFC) - Worzel Scrimmage, Mar 4, 20:17:56
        
        Maybe Cuffley should have contacted the club first. (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:26:24
        
        you could have a point there (NCFC) - emmaroyds, Mar 4, 20:15:09
        
        heres why I am guessing the Cuffley article was pulled (NCFC) - usacanary, Mar 4, 20:24:35
      - *in the circumstances* curious phrase - more questions than answers etc (NCFC) - norway, Mar 4, 20:01:18

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.