Ronaldo

Kaziero agrees. I'm sure he has loads of enjoyment placing those £200 doubles on that he's 'relying on'. Anyway, we all gamble for different reasons. It's f***ing ludicrous that some little b****** tells me i'm a less of a fan for putting money where my opinions are. I never want us to drop points, ever.

The discussion's surpassed the first example, mate.

It's called conviction. It says nothing about your priorities.

Same here, man. Stood to make a very tidy profit, but was down at Villa Park praying that we'd snatch a point. Went fucking insane when news of the Man U goal came in. Is it really so difficult for some of you to compartmentalize what you want to happen and what you think will happen? Sorry, like, but you're not going very far if that's the case.

Needless bet to make then no? How? Sentimentality is part of the reason the bookie generally comes off best. Bet with your head. 20/1 represents pretty incredible value, especially in retrospect. Except his bet does have a sentimental element to it, although it's a negative one. He's not betting with his head - Villa and Sunderland both on ridiculous slides and both arguably in as good of a chance of going down as us, yet he bets on us. If he wasn't a NUFC fan, I would put everything on him not putting the same bet on. 20/1 is great value, he is using his head. Him being an NUFC fan puts him in a better position to place an NUFC bet than most. Gambling is about using what you know.

The Euromillions doesn't involve any knowledge, it's a completely flawed comparison.

It's a popular view, and i'll never really understand it.

Needless bet to make then no? How? Sentimentality is part of the reason the bookie generally comes off best. Bet with your head. 20/1 represents pretty incredible value, especially in retrospect.

Never once said he was 'better' than Lescott, or 'significantly' better than Williamson. More outright lies. Not sure how any of that is relevant to this anyway.

He's already said he hopes he doesn't collect.

According to?

Are you talking about the Luque before the serious injury and mistreatment or the Luque prior to those events? He's talking about the actual Luque, not the hypothetical world beater. This is where you lot are failing to understand the argument and so there is no point continuing it. Are you talking about the Luque before the serious injury and mistreatment or the Luque prior to those events? He's talking about the actual Luque, not the hypothetical world beater. This is where you lot are failing to understand the argument and so there is no point continuing it. You're building a Luque who never existed, a Luque who should have taken Shearer's place in the team. The actual Luque was there and did nothing to earn his wages or justify his price tag. It's as simple as that. Again, you were about 7 at the time and you're completely ignoring what you've just been told by VI - who saw plenty of him. I was roughly 34 at the time and fully concur with what the 7-year-old said. I, unlike you, was sat just behind the dug-out at Spurs when he refused to warm up (for the game Owen was crocked in, as I recall) because he was on the bench. Terry Mac had to physically push him onto the pitch. Luque was a disgrace. End of. You rate Steven Taylor, you've clearly never been that close to a footie pitch.

No, you're solidly average - good.

Where have all these completely crap posters come from?

I can't laugh at the fact that we're basically begging to be relegated.

I said 3 years ago that Faye was the ideal partner for Coloccini, shame it never happened.

The overall comparison is completely irrelevant, man. It's that type of sentimental garbage that contributed to us going down. The 05-06 comparison is relevant.

Are you talking about the Luque before the serious injury and mistreatment or the Luque prior to those events? He's talking about the actual Luque, not the hypothetical world beater. This is where you lot are failing to understand the argument and so there is no point continuing it. You're building a Luque who never existed, a Luque who should have taken Shearer's place in the team. The actual Luque was there and did nothing to earn his wages or justify his price tag. It's as simple as that. Again, you were about 7 at the time and you're completely ignoring what you've just been told by VI - who saw plenty of him.

You've just been told by someone who saw plenty of him that he was a very good player when he joined us in 2005. He was never given a chance to prove it, not really. The blame can't fall at Shearer's door, it falls at the door of those who stupidly picked him when it was obvious he wasn't up to it anymore. Someone on here wrote a brilliant and heavy-hearted article after the mackems 3-2 game in 05 about the immediate need to drop him. Really summed the situation up well.

It's almost laughable.

They're right, btw. He looked very good.

He got 7 PL goals from open play despite starting all season. Leon Best will easily better that despite not playing till January. How the hell is that even relevant? Don't answer - it isn't. And the penalties argument is something i've heard from a Mackems and Smoggies - so don't stoop to that level. It's just as stupid as your second sentence. Shearer should have been replaced as soon as Sir Bobby was - i can't deny that. But that wasn't his fault and he just got on with it. Compare him to some of the some of the turgid s**** since... he scored more goals in that year than any one of Owen, Martins and Viduka, Sibierski the following years - and more than Shola, Lovenkrands and Best (there's a reason he didn't play till January) this year. So to even bring him into this circle of debate is a f***ing joke, even in his last season. So you agree with me in principal? Not sure why you dared to challenge me, tbh.

So how is looking average against Man U in his first PL game even approaching relevant?

It proves that Shearer's place in the team shouldn't have been anywhere near as secure as it was. In 04-05, he managed 4 from open play in an entire PL season. He was done and shouldn't have been in the first Xl unless it was unavoidable.

I'll ask you again, when did he look 'average'?