Kaizero

I was honestly more shocked by Bobby Madley only being 32 than Bobby Madley being a Delima wannabe.

they let 4 in normal time then scored with 21 minutes remaining to grab an away goal an mean Zenit needed to score 6, they scored 8 Played the last 50 mins with a player less as well. Already been opened an investegation with regards to match fixing as heavy bets were placed on Zenit to advance both before the game and after Minsk scored

I’m still amazed at how Dinamo Minsk managed to throw away a 4-0 lead from the first leg. Feels like Zenit just cheated at FM because they didn’t want to play through a season without Europe

They couldn’t just fucking do that in the first 90?

37 year old Emre, though.

Burnley costing me a £1100 win from £25

#prayforkanji

As mentioned by others, saying one NUFC player was better than other NUFC players does not equal said NUFC player having had a greater impact on NUFC over time or achieved more in their time at NUFC. It just means that someone thinks one player was better than another player and therefore when making a fictional «Best XI» it would make sense to include that player since it’s not a «Most Impactful/Influential XI».

I’m far too relaxed whenever Kane has the ball. I know there’s no actual reason he can’t score in August, yet I can’t make myself believe he’s capable of it. It’s annoying

Down with this sort of thing!

I feel like "Full Kaka" is meant to be the positive option, but both feel like sadness.

Perfect giffage

1 decent striker? Are we just writing muto (or maybe Rondon) off already I thought Muto would most likely play behind the striker or even on the wing. I don't expect him to be the main man up front. Muto is a striker, not a 10 or winger.

I've continually argued my point in utmost boring detail, and have had to make longer and longer posts to explain things to you as you generally either avoid replying to the actual points being made or decide to not reply at all and instead post personal attacks (see your above post for yet another example of this). It saddens me that you decided that the best way for you to step out of this discussion was pretending not to read my latest post, but also very acceptable and fitting. I, and many others, will certainly be glad we can move on from this now. That's why you started this whole thing in a quite obnoxious manner; you know you've support on this board and that bashing Dinho lad would be prove to be a popular move by you in order to get this support. Sado. Yes, this is exactly why: Important getting brownie points with the lads by persisting with a boring discussion. I'm sure the tediousness and persistence I'm putting into this rather mundane and meaningless discussion will increase my rep with them and not, if anything, decrease it.

I've continually argued my point in boring detail, and have to make longer and longer posts to explain things to you. It saddens me that you decided that the best way for you to step out of this discussion was pretending not to read my latest post, but also very acceptable and fitting. You kept repeating yourself with the same arguments but with different examples, which further shows your confusion. Go and watch the Antiques Roadshow. As mentioned in my posts, they've not been the same discussions. This has been the issue, as you've continually kept replying to a single discussion when that's not been the case. Also, please refrain from trying to end every post with an insult and/or command.

I've continually argued my point in utmost boring detail, and have had to make longer and longer posts to explain things to you as you generally either avoid replying to the actual points being made or decide to not reply at all and instead post personal attacks (see your above post for yet another example of this). It saddens me that you decided that the best way for you to step out of this discussion was pretending not to read my latest post, but also very acceptable and fitting. I, and many others, will certainly be glad we can move on from this now.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic. How did I contradict myself, then? You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!) Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster. Again...this is the impression of you: The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand. Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it. In simplified terms: Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic? Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic. Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic. Resolution: It's always been symbolic. I agreed that the symbolism is there inherently. I simply was going beyond this (the materialistic factor), and because obviously you can make everything into a symbol anyway. Keep covering your arse with more bullshit. 'Losing hand', ffs. When you are involved in an argument that you're not winning or can't back up, your standard go-to mechanism is swinging around you with insults and/or attempts at diverting from any discussion. It's quite frankly very annoying, as it makes the discussion take so much longer than it should. The core of the discussion was whether or not it's never not been symbolic. Then KI entered and said it's even better if the ball was used in a one ball system, as the ball then was involved in all goals for certain. I agreed to this, but also said it doesn't change anything from the original argument, which is that it's always been symbolic. To go to your medal example, an Olympic Gold Medal for a cross country skiier would have greater surface "value" (obviously personal circumstances such as a WC being after a battle against injury and similar might change the meaning of a medal for any individual) for the contestant than a WC Gold Medal, purely because the Olympics are every fourth year rather than every second year, which the WCs are. That doesn't change the fact that both Gold Medals would be symbolic. My argument re: anything being a symbol was agreement with you on the fact that you can argue symbolism for anything in life (though not "inherent" symbolism): Anything can have symbolism for any person, it's sentimental value - so yes, you can argue symbolism for anything. Inherent symbolism is a bit different though, due to the use of the word "inherent". Medals, for instance, are inherently symbolic as the symbolism attached to medals being given for performance are permanently symbolic. They're etched into our common consciousness as symbols of great achievements/performance, hence why most of us would mock a participation trophy as it goes against the purpose of the symbolism we've invested in trophies/medals. A rock could have great symbolism to me as an individual, but not to anyone else, hence that rock would not be inherently symbolic - just symbolic.

My ex thought that all the fans got given a hymn book with all the chants in before entering the ground

I'll lock your face.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic. How did I contradict myself, then? You mocked me when I touched upon the point that it may no longer symbolic, by asking, sarcastically, when was it ever not symbolic.(And no, you can't mention its 'inherent' nature as clearly I was talking about the act and intention of the player - not the philosophy behind it!) Later, you say oh yes 'I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore'! Time-fucking-waster. Again...this is the impression of you: The difference between you and I is that I at least try to stick to the discussion at hand rather than resort to weird personal attacks to deflect from a losing hand. Again, as mentioned, the snippet you've chosen to extract and base a new argument on is, in context, used to exemplify why it's always been a symbolic act. My argument started with "When has it not been a symbolic act?", and it's what I've been arguing the entire time. I conceded something raised by KI, which is that there can be different layers of symbolism attached to something. I'm not disputing that if a ball was the ball that was used for all three goals, it does not have more symbolic meaning for someone. But that was never my argument. My argument was that there's never been a time when taking home the match ball after a hat trick was not a symbolic gesture. You've, for some reason, argued against this even though the post I initially replied to said that it was fair enough if it was a symbolic gesture - which I've time and time again have explained to you, but for some reason you refuse to pick up on it. In simplified terms: Question: When has taking the match ball home after a hat trick ever not been symbolic? Example 1: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the one ball era: symbolic. Example 2: Taking the match ball home after a hat trick in the multi ball era: symbolic. Resolution: It's always been symbolic.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball. So now you're hanging onto the point that this is inherit? (Which it is, but as I mentioned before, everything else has symbolism to it!) You're contradicting yourself time and time again... Thanks... it's been a pleasure. Delightfully ironic.

You don’t have to. You understand it. It’s so fucking easy.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event. This does nothing. It’s the same argument. In what world has it not been a symbolic act? Jesus christ, man. For absolute fucking fucks sake. Taking the match ball after you score a hat trick is to commemorate the event with a symbol from the match. If you scored three or zero goals with the ball you take makes no difference to the intended purpose of taking the match ball.

The match ball is a symbol commemorating the hat-trick. It’s not hard. You're making it about the event - but it's actually about the ball and what you've done with it. It’s not, it’s about you scoring a hat trick. The match ball you’re taking home might have been involved in zero of the goals you scored, meaning it’s clearly not about the ball. I’m not saying it once wasn’t about the ball when there still was a one ball system, but that it absolutely is not anymore. Even with the one ball system balls got replaced every now and then and I wager a player scoring a hat trick still took home the ball the match ended with. Hence the ball is a symbol commemorating an event.