well depends on your definition of QUACK

he posted the same thing as me but was too slow. As far as I'm concerned that's worthy of a QUACK.

I suspect you're a hardline QUACK purist. I'm a bit more free-form, me.

Posted By: Tricky Hawes on May 9th 2005 at 11:48:13

Message Thread

Don't mean to worry you guys further (NCFC) - Capital Canary, May 9, 11:34:03
- IF (NCFC) - Komodo, May 9, 11:37:35
  - You think that? (NCFC) - GregP, May 9, 11:42:22
    - He's said ?10m-?25m, actually. (n/m) (NCFC) - d0mj4y, May 9, 11:43:26
      - I heard (NCFC) - Capital Canary, May 9, 11:53:10
  - Saints could have said that last season (NCFC) - mr carra, May 9, 11:40:50
    - but they cocked it up managerially (n/m) (NCFC) - duke of york, May 9, 11:43:01
      - quack. (n/m) (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 9, 11:44:04
        
        I see no QUACK! (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, May 9, 11:46:32
        
        well depends on your definition of QUACK (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 9, 11:48:13
        
        Is that not more of a WW2 starts? (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, May 9, 11:51:41
        
        no. cos WW2 etc that refers to old NEWS (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 9, 11:54:35
        
        We need a new term then...... (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, May 9, 12:01:59
    - yep. their problem was the wrong manager, I guess. (n/m) (NCFC) - Tricky Hawes, May 9, 11:42:10

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.