There's certainly a john madjeski style to him
not saying that's bad, but Reading at notorious for sticking to a budget, and the mere thought of a gamble to stay up last season was rubbished
Even when they sold sidwell and a couple of other players, they weren't replaced
I think if cullum came in, it would be a similar story of as and when, not instant gains on the field and promotion
In that sense, much of the negativity about change at the club at the moment, wouldn't really see much of a return hysteria wise, from a board change
I think I'll always have the same opinion about Cullum, regardless of it going wrong or working out. He's not nail his colours to the mast in my opinion, and he doesn't love NCFC as much as he'll try to make out
Posted By: pants on December 3rd 2008 at 17:08:21
Message Thread
- MotherFuckingWaghorn latest (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:09:15
- Good point well made... (NCFC) - Fierce Panda, Dec 3, 16:59:21
- another good article, what's your problem? (NCFC) - Chopper, Dec 3, 16:49:32
- Where, anywhere, did I say I had a problem with it? (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:50:36
- the thread title didn't sound overly supportive (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 16:55:19
- MFW = MotherFuckingWaghorn (NCFC) - blindasabat, Dec 3, 17:04:46
- and why is this reserved for him? (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 17:07:11
- correct - it comes from Wagger referring to his own site as MFW (NCFC) - blindasabat, Dec 3, 17:10:48
- does he run the site? (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 17:13:07
- he does run it (n/m) (NCFC) - blindasabat, Dec 3, 17:17:32
- then my opinion of him (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 17:19:00
- he does run it (n/m) (NCFC) - blindasabat, Dec 3, 17:17:32
- does he run the site? (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 17:13:07
- correct - it comes from Wagger referring to his own site as MFW (NCFC) - blindasabat, Dec 3, 17:10:48
- and why is this reserved for him? (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 17:07:11
- MFW = MotherFuckingWaghorn (NCFC) - blindasabat, Dec 3, 17:04:46
- the thread title didn't sound overly supportive (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Dec 3, 16:55:19
- Where, anywhere, did I say I had a problem with it? (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:50:36
- MotherFuckingIrritating (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:18:59
- Point 3 is valid though, no? (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:21:23
- No (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:23:09
- Fine (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:24:09
- I'm sure it's right that Cullum is now waiting for the car crash (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:32:21
- From a rational, commercial viewpoint - agreed. But (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:38:40
- No way (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:40:33
- Indeed - short term pain for long term gain (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:43:45
- Except it won't be, as he's clearly stated the funds he'll put in are limited (NCFC) - megson, Dec 3, 17:02:35
- Oh and now i've read Waggers piece i'm off to top myself. Jesus that was depressing (NCFC) - megson, Dec 3, 17:09:13
- There's certainly a john madjeski style to him (NCFC) - pants, Dec 3, 17:08:21
- Except it won't be, as he's clearly stated the funds he'll put in are limited (NCFC) - megson, Dec 3, 17:02:35
- Indeed - short term pain for long term gain (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:43:45
- No way (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:40:33
- From a rational, commercial viewpoint - agreed. But (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:38:40
- I'm sure it's right that Cullum is now waiting for the car crash (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:32:21
- Fine (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:24:09
- No (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Git, Dec 3, 16:23:09
- Point 3 is valid though, no? (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Dec 3, 16:21:23
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.