Jump to content

True Faith and The Mag must mobilise immediately


TRon

Recommended Posts

So people weren't happy with Ashley, but would welcome a group who would have reneged on an agreement with Man City after convincing them to spend £30m+ on a player and just left them totally in the shit!?!

 

If anyone would really welcome owners like that then the term "mongs" just doesn't do them justice! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So people weren't happy with Ashley, but would welcome a group who would have reneged on an agreement with Man City after convincing them to spend £30m+ on a player and just left them totally in the shit!?!

 

If anyone would really welcome owners like that then the term "mongs" just doesn't do them justice! :rolleyes:

 

Do you honestly think mongs would think that far ahead?

 

Unlike our fanzine spokesmen who not only know how to complain loudly and effectively, but also can provide a working solution I'm sure. I'm positive they're right now working hard to get the new billionaire owners on board by Wednesday :thup:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So people weren't happy with Ashley, but would welcome a group who would have reneged on an agreement with Man City after convincing them to spend £30m+ on a player and just left them totally in the shit!?!

 

If anyone would really welcome owners like that then the term "mongs" just doesn't do them justice! :rolleyes:

 

They werent happy with Ashley's choice of directors and their relative rolespower within the club.

I do believe that one the whole, Ashley was popular.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So people weren't happy with Ashley, but would welcome a group who would have reneged on an agreement with Man City after convincing them to spend £30m+ on a player and just left them totally in the shit!?!

 

If anyone would really welcome owners like that then the term "mongs" just doesn't do them justice! :rolleyes:

 

They werent happy with Ashley's choice of directors and their relative rolespower within the club.

I do believe that one the whole, Ashley was popular.

 

 

Fine, I'll rephrase it:

 

So people would welcome a group who would have reneged on an agreement with Man City after convincing them to spend £30m+ on a player and just left them totally in the shit!?!

 

If anyone would really welcome owners like that then the term "mongs" just doesn't do them justice! :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling people mongs for wanting something you've just made up and based on rumours some people heard on Talksport. Doesn't that go against everything you've been saying the last few weeks?

 

It's a small word, so I can see why you might have missed it, but "if" is quite important to understanding what I'm saying.

 

Yes, that was quite condescending, sorry. It's not really aimed at you, I'm just sick of people misunderstanding what I'm saying, some of them seemingly deliberately, again not you.

 

Also, people buying into rumours and deluding themselves about what's good for the club is exactly what I've been calling people mongs for all week, so I'm not sure what you mean actually.

 

Also, what have I made up by the way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling people mongs for wanting something you've just made up and based on rumours some people heard on Talksport. Doesn't that go against everything you've been saying the last few weeks?

 

It's a small word, so I can see why you might have missed it, but "if" is quite important to understanding what I'm saying.

 

Yes, that was quite condescending, sorry. It's not really aimed at you, I'm just sick of people misunderstanding what I'm saying, some of them seemingly deliberately, again not you.

 

Also, people buying into rumours and deluding themselves about what's good for the club is exactly what I've been calling people mongs for all week, so I'm not sure what you mean actually.

 

Also, what have I made up by the way?

 

Quick, Indi, I need some training. Thomas is after me in the other thread. You paved the way, we're just following.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling people mongs for wanting something you've just made up and based on rumours some people heard on Talksport. Doesn't that go against everything you've been saying the last few weeks?

 

It's a small word, so I can see why you might have missed it, but "if" is quite important to understanding what I'm saying.

 

Yes, that was quite condescending, sorry. It's not really aimed at you, I'm just sick of people misunderstanding what I'm saying, some of them seemingly deliberately, again not you.

 

Also, people buying into rumours and deluding themselves about what's good for the club is exactly what I've been calling people mongs for all week, so I'm not sure what you mean actually.

 

Also, what have I made up by the way?

 

Quick, Indi, I need some training. Thomas is after me in the other thread. You paved the way, we're just following.

 

Here you, a master-class in condescension:

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?action=profile;u=1106;sa=showPosts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest northwestmag1892

Apparently the City deal hasn't been signed and sealed yet. There was some mention on Talksport about it.

 

Aye, Alan Brazil was on about it in the week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reads like you're slagging some unknown people off for something they haven't said about a group who haven't done anything wrong. I don't really understand your post tbh.

 

It's a comment based upon a hypothetical situation, which people seemed to be suggesting was possible and that some might welcome. I was passing judgement on the judgement, or lack thereof, of people who might welcome such a hypothetical situation becoming reality.

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're picking me up on. ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling people mongs for wanting something you've just made up and based on rumours some people heard on Talksport. Doesn't that go against everything you've been saying the last few weeks?

 

It's a small word, so I can see why you might have missed it, but "if" is quite important to understanding what I'm saying.

 

Yes, that was quite condescending, sorry. It's not really aimed at you, I'm just sick of people misunderstanding what I'm saying, some of them seemingly deliberately, again not you.

 

Also, people buying into rumours and deluding themselves about what's good for the club is exactly what I've been calling people mongs for all week, so I'm not sure what you mean actually.

 

Also, what have I made up by the way?

 

Quick, Indi, I need some training. Thomas is after me in the other thread. You paved the way, we're just following.

 

Here you, a master-class in condescension:

 

http://www.newcastle-online.com/nufcforum/index.php?action=profile;u=1106;sa=showPosts

 

This should read like the Bushido for N-O, I assume. Cheers :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reads like you're slagging some unknown people off for something they haven't said about a group who haven't done anything wrong. I don't really understand your post tbh.

 

It's a comment based upon a hypothetical situation, which people seemed to be suggesting was possible and that some might welcome. I was passing judgement on the judgement, or lack thereof, of people who might welcome such a hypothetical situation becoming reality.

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're picking me up on. ???

 

Some would indeed welcome a City-style takeover and spending spree. I'm not really one of them, but fair enough.

 

You then say they'd be mongs to welcome such a thing, based on some rumours on a podcast and Talksport about City? You appear to be criticising people based on something that's not even happened.

 

Unless the City thing is proven to be dodgy, I don't see why wanting a similar group to take over here makes someone a mong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reads like you're slagging some unknown people off for something they haven't said about a group who haven't done anything wrong. I don't really understand your post tbh.

 

It's a comment based upon a hypothetical situation, which people seemed to be suggesting was possible and that some might welcome. I was passing judgement on the judgement, or lack thereof, of people who might welcome such a hypothetical situation becoming reality.

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you're picking me up on. ???

 

Some would indeed welcome a City-style takeover and spending spree. I'm not really one of them, but fair enough.

 

You then say they'd be mongs to welcome such a thing, based on some rumours on a podcast and Talksport about City? You appear to be criticising people based on something that's not even happened.

 

Unless the City thing is proven to be dodgy, I don't see why wanting a similar group to take over here makes someone a mong.

 

No, you've totally misunderstood what I said, I'm not talking about a group like the one taking over City coming here, I'm talking about if the group taking over city came here instead and abandoned City.

 

I'm not sure how you've managed to understand what I wrote in the way that you have, come on man, read it again. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...