Player Suggestion Tom Bayliss

[CoatesyBlade]

I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting we spend money that we can't afford and to hell with it.
I just think CW values a player regarding his ability to improve the squad making his team better and able to compete. I don't think resale is a concern.
Examples... McGoldrick - brought in to improve the forward line with no resale value. Norwood - brought in to give us better quality in the midfield and a wealth of promotion experience. Egan - will have a resale value of course, but brought in to be the club captain of the future. Fleck and O'Connell could of been sold but CW fought to keep them.
The players you mentioned simply couldn't be hold onto anymore with the position we was in at the time.

 

[tincan]

I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting we spend money that we can't afford and to hell with it.
I just think CW values a player regarding his ability to improve the squad making his team better and able to compete. I don't think resale is a concern.
Examples... McGoldrick - brought in to improve the forward line with no resale value. Norwood - brought in to give us better quality in the midfield and a wealth of promotion experience. Egan - will have a resale value of course, but brought in to be the club captain of the future. Fleck and O'Connell could of been sold but CW fought to keep them.
The players you mentioned simply couldn't be hold onto anymore with the position we was in at the time.

 

[tincan]

Given its said to be a 53% chance of relegation for promoted teams , the recruitment has to err on the probability we will be straight back down. So Bayliss, Luca Connell etc. would fit a strategy of survival players and ones for the future.

 

[Latters]

Given its said to be a 53% chance of relegation for promoted teams , the recruitment has to err on the probability we will be straight back down. So Bayliss, Luca Connell etc. would fit a strategy of survival players and ones for the future.

That’s a nonsense statistic though because if you sign players in preparation for being relegated, that’s what will happen.

It’s nothing to do with chance. The players you sign directly impact on the likelihood you will stay up or be relegated. If you plan for failure that’s exactly what you’ll get.

 

[Pinchy]

I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting we spend money that we can't afford and to hell with it.
I just think CW values a player regarding his ability to improve the squad making his team better and able to compete. I don't think resale is a concern.
Examples... McGoldrick - brought in to improve the forward line with no resale value. Norwood - brought in to give us better quality in the midfield and a wealth of promotion experience. Egan - will have a resale value of course, but brought in to be the club captain of the future. Fleck and O'Connell could of been sold but CW fought to keep them.
The players you mentioned simply couldn't be hold onto anymore with the position we was in at the time.

Have. Fucking ‘Have’.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Have. Fucking ‘Have’.

Sorry my English isn't the Queen's... I was born and raised in South Yorkshire.
I should OF known someone with nothing better to contribute would OF picked me up for it though!
Thanks

 

[Pinchy]

Sorry my English isn't the Queen's... I was born and raised in South Yorkshire.
I should OF known someone with nothing better to contribute would OF picked me up for it though!
Thanks

‘Of’ is not a verb, even in the darkest recesses of South Yorkshire. It’s a wonderful preposition, one of the best, but a verb it is not. ‘Have’, irregular though it might be, is an excellent and essential verb. Let each do its own job.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

‘Of’ is not a verb, even in the darkest recesses of South Yorkshire. It’s a wonderful preposition, one of the best, but a verb it is not. ‘Have’, irregular though it might be, is an excellent and essential verb. Let each do its own job.

No but most people in the deepest darkest parts of South Yorkshire don't care if it's a verb or not. They don't care if it's irregular or regular. They don't care if it's 'of' or 'have' that's used in a sentence.
It's bizarre behaviour to get wound up about such things. Unless your thing is to try and rubbish someone's opinion by correcting their grammar.
If you heard someone in a pub would you go over and scream "have! Fucking have!" In their face?
Why don't you just accept that some people don't understand the English language at the same level as you and just contribute to the thread.

 

[Latters]

No but most people in the deepest darkest parts of South Yorkshire don't care if it's a verb or not. They don't care if it's irregular or regular. They don't care if it's 'of' or 'have' that's used in a sentence.
It's bizarre behaviour to get wound up about such things. Unless your thing is to try and rubbish someone's opinion by correcting their grammar.
If you heard someone in a pub would you go over and scream "have! Fucking have!" In their face?
Why don't you just accept that some people don't understand the English language at the same level as you and just contribute to the thread.

Yes, but the word “of” makes sweet fuck all sense in that context. You might as well replace the word “have” with “piano” for the sense it makes.

In fact, let’s replace all words with other, nonsensical ones. Trouser fish grapple bear, which I’ve now decided means up the mighty Blades.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Have. Fucking ‘Have’.

Don't forget to add, 'were', either.

Why is it that being born in an area suggests there's little reason to learn and improve? I was born in an extremely working class part of London, and although I often use the vernacular I grew up with, I added to this and appreciate the benefits of an expansive skill-set. It's as if someone can only use one limb without realising that it might be worth using the other one.

 

[ljk]

Yes, but the word “of” makes sweet fuck all sense in that context. You might as well replace the word “have” with “piano” for the sense it makes.

In fact, let’s replace all words with other, nonsensical ones. Trouser fish grapple bear, which I’ve now decided means up the mighty Blades.

I work in linguistics and was discussing this with a colleague the other day.

It's because English is a stress-timed language, and we put emphasis on the 'content' words that carry meaning and give weak forms to prepositions, auxilliary verbs etc. In the case above ("could of been sold") 'of' should technically be 'have' as it's the past form of the modal verb 'could'. However, when we speak 'have' takes a weak form which is phonetically written as /əv/ (instead of /hæv/) and sounds a lot like 'of'. Hence the reason that loads of people think of can be used with modals.

That said, 'written speaking' has become it's own genre due to text messaging and social media, and obviously language is always changing, so I suppose you could argue that the mistaken 'of' in past modals is accepted by enough people to be recognised as a legitimate structure...I'm not saying that's what I believe myself, but I do know that loads of my friends always use 'of'.

 

[ljk]

I work in linguistics and was discussing this with a colleague the other day.

It's because English is a stress-timed language, and we put emphasis on the 'content' words that carry meaning and give weak forms to prepositions, auxilliary verbs etc. In the case above ("could of been sold") 'of' should technically be 'have' as it's the past form of the modal verb 'could'. However, when we speak 'have' takes a weak form which is phonetically written as /əv/ (instead of /hæv/) and sounds a lot like 'of'. Hence the reason that loads of people think of can be used with modals.

That said, 'written speaking' has become it's own genre due to text messaging and social media, and obviously language is always changing, so I suppose you could argue that the mistaken 'of' in past modals is accepted by enough people to be recognised as a legitimate structure...I'm not saying that's what I believe myself, but I do know that loads of my friends always use 'of'.

...also my Coventry supporting friend says Tom Bayliss is "mint"

 

[Latters]

I work in linguistics and was discussing this with a colleague the other day.

It's because English is a stress-timed language, and we put emphasis on the 'content' words that carry meaning and give weak forms to prepositions, auxilliary verbs etc. In the case above ("could of been sold") 'of' should technically be 'have' as it's the past form of the modal verb 'could'. However, when we speak 'have' takes a weak form which is phonetically written as /əv/ (instead of /hæv/) and sounds a lot like 'of'. Hence the reason that loads of people think of can be used with modals.

That said, 'written speaking' has become it's own genre due to text messaging and social media, and obviously language is always changing, so I suppose you could argue that the mistaken 'of' in past modals is accepted by enough people to be recognised as a legitimate structure...I'm not saying that's what I believe myself, but I do know that loads of my friends always use 'of'.

I appreciate that part of the reason we have such a varied lexicon is that neologisms come into play; it’s just frustrating when they come about because of common mistakes or laziness. It would be just as easy to type “would’ve” which makes perfect sense.

...also my Coventry supporting friend says Tom Bayliss is "mint"

I’m more comfortable with “mint” as an adjective and hope it’s the case if we end up signing Bayliss! Unless your friend finds him attractive, in which case I’m indifferent...

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Don't forget to add, 'were', either.

Why is it that being born in an area suggests there's little reason to learn and improve? I was born in an extremely working class part of London, and although I often use the vernacular I grew up with, I added to this and appreciate the benefits of an expansive skill-set. It's as if someone can only use one limb without realising that it might be worth using the other one.

Sweet jaysus!
I was simply saying that my failings with the English language shouldn't be the focal point during a thread about a football player.
And whilst educating the likes of me I hardly think embarrassing someone is the way forward.
Not how I teach my subordinates at work anyway.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Yes, but the word “of” makes sweet fuck all sense in that context. You might as well replace the word “have” with “piano” for the sense it makes.

In fact, let’s replace all words with other, nonsensical ones. Trouser fish grapple bear, which I’ve now decided means up the mighty Blades.

This is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. If you honestly think me using 'of' instead of 'have' warrants this behaviour from yourself then that's truly quite sad. I do mean sad by the way just incase you was wondering or struggling to crack that code.

 

[Latters]

This is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. If you honestly think me using 'of' instead of 'have' warrants this behaviour from yourself then that's truly quite sad. I do mean sad by the way just incase you was wondering or struggling to crack that code.

“This behaviour”.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Sweet jaysus!
I was simply saying that my failings with the English language shouldn't be the focal point during a thread about a football player.
And whilst educating the likes of me I hardly think embarrassing someone is the way forward.
Not how I teach my subordinates at work anyway.

You misinterpret me mate. With your reply above you've just shown how easy it is to write a reply that is coherent and lends itself to the laws of reasonable written English. So there are no failings where you're concerned. I get that we sometimes don't apply ourselves in the way we should, but it makes far more sense to consider the grammar and punctuation used, rather than rattle off a reply that could, with a little more consideration, have expressed the writer more incisively.

I also appreciate that there can be a tendency to behave like a grammar 'nazi' where this is concerned, so please don't think I'm rigid about this, I'm not. it's just that it makes reading a post a better experience for all concerned.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

You misinterpret me mate. With your reply above you've just shown how easy it is to write a reply that is coherent and lends itself to the laws of reasonable written English. So there are no failings where you're concerned. I get that we sometimes don't apply ourselves in the way we should, but it makes far more sense to consider the grammar and punctuation used, rather than rattle off a reply that could, with a little more consideration, have expressed the writer more incisively.

I also appreciate that there can be a tendency to behave like a grammar 'nazi' where this is concerned, so please don't think I'm rigid about this, I'm not. it's just that it makes reading a post a better experience for all concerned.

Thank you for saying.
I've been told about the 'of' and 'have' thing before truth be told. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways at this point but I'll try harder in the future.

 

[ScottishBlade93]

What an exciting argument

 

[Mouth of the South]

Does all this mean Bayliss is definitely signing then?

 

[itsinyerblood]

Thank you for saying.
I've been told about the 'of' and 'have' thing before truth be told. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways at this point but I'll try harder in the future.

We all fall into old habits, it's virtually impossible to completely remedy this. What matters is to want to embrace this important aspect of life. I certainly don't expect word perfect messages, but it helps to convey a message if you make the effort. Sometimes, a simple 'bollocks' gets the point across, so all any of us can do is to pay attention and, hopefully, improve over time.

 

[andy m]

Does all this mean Bayliss is definitely signing then?

Should of by now.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

I’m with Pinchy on the have/of debate. In fact it shouldn’t be a debate.

I know a number of people who for instance say “he should of” and it’s a pet hate of mine. The other forum member is not alone, probably one of millions but there’s still no excuse for it. I never correct anyone’s speech or grammar apart from in this instance. Mine probably isn’t perfect either, I just really hate that particular one.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

I’m with Pinchy on the have/of debate. In fact it shouldn’t be a debate.

I know a number of people who for instance say “he should of” and it’s a pet hate of mine. The other forum member is not alone, probably one of millions but there’s still no excuse for it. I never correct anyone’s speech or grammar apart from in this instance. Mine probably isn’t perfect either, I just really hate that particular one.

Bloody hell mate don't set us all off again!
It's only just been put to bed!

 

[Th!stledo]

Words such as 'ginormous' and 'humungus' amongst a long list of others are now part of the The Oxford English Dictionary.
Surely language, written or spoken is basically a form of communication?


For me I am mainly interested in the point the person is making rather than whether the spelling and grammar is correct.
I would hate to think that someone who had a relevant point to make, chose not to because the few with a superior complex will feel the need to chatise them.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

Words such as 'ginormous' and 'humungus' amongst a long list of others are now part of the The Oxford English Dictionary.
Surely language, written or spoken is basically a form of communication?


For me I am mainly interested in the point the person is making rather than whether the spelling and grammar is correct.
I would hate to think that someone who had a relevant point to make, chose not to because the few with a superior complex will feel the need to chatise them.

Yeah let's just get back to the footie!

View attachment 54628

 

[Blade56]

Sorry my English isn't the Queen's... I was born and raised in South Yorkshire.
I should OF known someone with nothing better to contribute would OF picked me up for it though!
Thanks

But Pinchy missed your other mistake that no one was bothered about either.....

“The players you mentioned simply couldn't be hold onto anymore with the position we was in at the time.”

Forms of Was and Were. Was is used in the first person singular (I) and the third person singular (he, she, it). Were is used in the second person singular and plural (you, your, yours) and first and third person plural (we, they).

Meh, who cares, I understood and I can’t spel.

Who was we talking about?

 

[HVR]

Knock knock
Who’s there?
To
To who?
Actually, it’s to whom

 

[CoatesyBlade]

But Pinchy missed your other mistake that no one was bothered about either.....

“The players you mentioned simply couldn't be hold onto anymore with the position we was in at the time.”

Forms of Was and Were. Was is used in the first person singular (I) and the third person singular (he, she, it). Were is used in the second person singular and plural (you, your, yours) and first and third person plural (we, they).

Meh, who cares, I understood and I can’t spel.

Who was we talking about?

No somebody else noticed that too! Haha

 

[Th!stledo]

Words such as 'ginormous' and 'humungus' amongst a long list of others are now part of the The Oxford English Dictionary.
Surely language, written or spoken is basically a form of communication?


For me I am mainly interested in the point the person is making rather than whether the spelling and grammar is correct.
I would hate to think that someone who had a relevant point to make, chose not to because the few with a superior complex will feel the need to chatise them.



View attachment 54628

Thank you to all those who have noticed and not pointed out the couple of mistakes in my closing sentence. They were obviously done on purpose.