Mutual consent

[Barney]

So what is he talking about ? Adkins or mcsue/prince ?

Adkins, as he posted another thread indicating Chris Wilder is the front runner to replace him and something about going down the director of football route. It might all end up as complete bullshit but given the guys perfect track record, there's no reason to not believe it.

 

[chesblade]

Listening to NA interview I do think he was surprised by it infact I think shocked. It appears this sunji or whatever they are called are definitely trying to stir it.

 

[bartman]

"Listen, I aint getting rid of Jamie Murphy"

Two area to consuder

1. All you have done is put a quote in space marks. Did Adkins actually say this. Was this in the context of the question? When did he say it ?

2. If he did say it, it might have been true at the time. Who sold the player in the end ? The Board or Adkins ? Are you saying that Adkins forced the Boards hands to sell.

Still waiting for all the lies he has told us.

 

[bartman]

Adkins, as he posted another thread indicating Chris Wilder is the front runner to replace him and something about going down the director of football route. It might all end up as complete bullshit but given the guys perfect track record, there's no reason to not believe it.

It is two different threads. His first thread doesn't mention any names of the subject of the 'mutual consent' topic. His 2nd thread is about CW. Possibly the two aren't linked. People are trying to put two and two together here but the first post could refer to a player,manager or board member.

 

[Barney]

Two area to consuder

1. All you have done is put a quote in space marks. Did Adkins actually say this. Was this in the context of the question? When did he say it ?

2. If he did say it, it might have been true at the time. Who sold the player in the end ? The Board or Adkins ? Are you saying that Adkins forced the Boards hands to sell.

Still waiting for all the lies he has told us.

Where did I imply that he has told more than one?

It is a direct quote from the ask Adkins event.

If you are saying that this is not a lie as it could have been the board that took control and sold him, then in any case he's not damned if he does, and he's also not damned if doesn't. If the decision wasn't up to him there was no need to say "I", instead of "we".

He chose "I" because then if we didn't sell Murphy, he can appear as if it was he that didn't sell him and it was he that had ownership over the deal. But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility.

He wins either way. Which is what he intended.

 

[Esablade]

Where did I imply that he has told more than one?

It is a direct quote from the ask Adkins event.

If you are saying that this is not a lie as it could have been the board that took control and sold him, then in any case he's not damned if he does, and he's also not damned if doesn't. If the decision wasn't up to him there was no need to say "I", instead of "we".

He chose "I" because then if we didn't sell Murphy, he can appear as if it was he that didn't sell him and it was he that had ownership over the deal. But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility.

He wins either way. Which is what he intended.

..so now, after the mammoth previous thread, you're admitting he didn't lie but was simply being 'political'...you show yourself up every time you post these days..no wonder you've taken to ignoring posts which point this out..

 

[bartman]

Where did I imply that he has told more than one?

It is a direct quote from the ask Adkins event.

If you are saying that this is not a lie as it could have been the board that took control and sold him, then in any case he's not damned if he does, and he's also not damned if doesn't. If the decision wasn't up to him there was no need to say "I", instead of "we".

He chose "I" because then if we didn't sell Murphy, he can appear as if it was he that didn't sell him and it was he that had ownership over the deal. But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility.

He wins either way. Which is what he intended.

Oh dear. More spin than 10 Downing Street

 

[Barney]

..so now, after the mammoth previous thread, you're admitting he didn't lie but was simply being 'political'...you show yourself up every time you post these days..no wonder you've taken to ignoring posts which point this out..

He said "I" because he wanted responsibility if we didn't sell him, therefore that responsibility has to be carried over to the scenario of us selling him. He can't have it both ways. Which means that what he said was a lie.

 

[Esablade]

He said "I" because he wanted responsibility if we didn't sell him, therefore that responsibility has to be carried over to the scenario of us selling him. He can't have it both ways. Which means that what he said was a lie.

Are you David Cameron in disguise?
Desperate stuff...

 

[Barney]

Are you David Cameron in disguise?
Desperate stuff...

 

[Esablade]

No deflection at all, just taking the piss out of you squirming snd backtracking.

This is repetition from the previous thread on this..unless your memory fails you...to repeat, he said "I", because he had no intention of selling Murphy, didn't want to sell Murphy and did'nt have the power, ultimately to sell Murphy.

As he said himself, why sell your best players?

And now you've just said yourself he didn't sell him a few post's back...is your memory that bad?

 

[Barney]

And now you've just said yourself he didn't sell him a few list's back...

Precise quote please.

 

[Esablade]

Precise quote please.

He chose "I" because then if we didn't sell Murphy, he can appear as if it was he that didn't sell him and it was he that had ownership over the deal. But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility.

Apart from it not making grammatical sense and being one of the most paranoid posts on this board I've read...you appear to be saying he was 'detached' from the sale..unless you're implying Adkns pulls McCabe's/Princey's strings?

 

[Barney]

Ha, where do I say Adkins didn't sell Murphy there?

 

[Bladesway]

He posted that Baxter had been suspended a few days before his last team sheet prediction when he said 'BYE' midway through the game.

On another note. I made a mistake, he didn't predict Collins leaving, that was someone else.

I'd like to think that excludes anyone from the first team but they are that disinterested I wouldn't exclude them from posting on here mid match.

 

[Esablade]

Ha, where do I say Adkins didn't sell Murphy there?

To be pedantic...you said it 'appears as though as he's completely detached from all responsibility'...

If I said you were completely detached from all responsibility, what do you think the meaning is?

It appears that Adkin's was 'detached from responsibility' because he was, as you state.
It's quite simple..unless, as I said, you're now saying he pulls McCabes and the Prince's strings in some Machiavellian way?

 

[Barney]

To be pedantic...you said it 'appears as though as he's completely detached from all responsibility'...

If I said you were completely detached from all responsibility, what do you think the meaning is?

It appears that Adkin's was 'detached from responsibility' because he was, as you state.
It's quite simple..unless, as I said, you're now saying he pulls McCabes and the Prince's strings in some Machiavellian way?

Are you actually this dense or is it intentional?

Why have you taken only a part of that quote? The full quote reads "But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility."

All in bold you missed out. You also seem to have added "it" in there for effect.

 

[Esablade]

Are you actually this dense or is it intentional?

Why have you taken only a part of that quote? The full quote reads "But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility."

You also seem to have added "it" in there for effect. Nowhere in my post does it say "it". All in bold you missed out.

You asked for a precise quote.
I gave it.
You didn't question it until I pointed out how stupid it made you look.

So now you're saying Adkins engineered the situation with clever wording, that he really wanted to sell Murphy and that he pulls McCabe's/Princey's strings?

 

[Barney]

You asked for a precise quote.
I gave it.
You didn't question it until I pointed out how stupid it made you look.

So now you're saying Adkins engineered the situation with clever wording, that he really wanted to sell Murphy and that he pulls McCabe's/Princey's strings?

No you took "But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility."

and transformed it into

"it appears as though he was completely detached from all responsibility."

Two different quotes with two very different meanings.

If you can't get your head around that then you really have got no hope.

 

[Esablade]

No you took "But as we did sell him, the fact that he used "I" can allow him to appear as though he was completely detached from all responsibility."

and transformed it into

"it appears as though he was completely detached from all responsibility."

Two different quotes with two very different meanings.

If you can't get your head around that then you really have got no hope.

You 're getting a bit desperate again now.

As I stated previously, and which you ignored, what are you trying to imply?

Either it 'appears as though he was completely detached from all responsibility'

-because he was.

Or, as you're now avoiding claiming, he 'engineered this 'appearance' to deceive because he his really the puppet master pulling all the strings behind the Murphy sale and he wanted him sold!?!?

Which is it?

Do you even understand what you wrote?

 

[Barney]

You 're getting a bit desperate again now.

As I stated previously, and which you ignored, what are you trying to imply?

Either it 'appears as though he was completely detached from all responsibility'

-because he was.

Or, as you're now avoiding claiming, he 'engineered this 'appearance' to deceive because he his really the puppet master pulling all the strings behind the Murphy sale and he wanted him sold!?!?

Which is it?

Do you even understand what you wrote?

As I have already stated in a previous post, I was making the point that if he wanted to try and take responsibility for not selling Murphy by saying "I", he has to carry that responsibility over to the scenario of selling Murphy. He can't have it both ways. Therefore it is a lie.

Why did you transform what I'd written into something completely different by the way?

 

[Esablade]

As I have already stated in a previous post, I was making the point that if he wants to try and take responsibility for not selling Murphy by saying "I", he has to carry that responsibility over to the scenario of selling Murphy. He can't have it both ways. Therefore it is a lie.

Why did you transform what I'd written into something completely different by the way?

Lol...which is it?
Answer the question please..if at all able..?

 

[Barney]

Lol...which is it?
Answer the question please..if at all able..?

It's neither. It's an entirely separate point. Anyone who isn't completely dim would realise this.

 

[Esablade]

It's neither. It's an entirely separate point. Anyone who isn't completely dim would realise this.

No it isn't.
I'll try and help because you appear to be struggling.

1. Do you think Adkins wanted to sell Murphy and had the power to make that decision?

Come on, that's a really simple question...yes or no please.

 

[Bladesman]

Most managers say that and then the following day they get the boot.

 

[Barney]

No it isn't.
I'll try and help because you appear to be struggling.

1. Do you think Adkins wanted to sell Murphy and had the power to make that decision?

Come on, that's a really simple question...yes or no please.

That is a completely separate question to the point I was making. It is not a yes or no question, the answer is I don't know because there is no possible way you can find out the answer. Now can you answer mine? Why did you change what I'd written into something completely different? I notice you didn't answer when I asked it before.

 

[Esablade]

That is a completely separate question to the point I was making. It is not a yes or no question, the answer is I don't know because there is no possible way you can find out the answer. Now can you answer mine? Why did you change what I'd written into something completely different? I notice you didn't answer when I asked it before.

Flouncey-mc-flounce-flounce-rears his ugly head again...sorry you were unable to answer a very simple straightforward question.

 

[Barney]

Flouncey-mc-flounce-flounce-rears his ugly head again...sorry you were unable to answer a very simple straightforward question.

Can you answer mine please?

 

[Esablade]

Can you answer mine please?

Yes. I changed nothing. Quoted you verbatim.
Now your turn.. Go on..

 

[Barney]

Yes. I changed nothing. Quoted you verbatim.
.

Haha! You missed out a whole chunk of it to change the meaning entirely. You're actually laughable.

I'm bored of you now anyway, so any reply you send will be met with a picture of Jeremy Corbyn.