Jump to content

2roland2

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

    3,849
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by 2roland2

  1. you know what I will leave it here and let the mods deal with it. Deejay asked politely earlier in the thread to stop abusive posts and stick to posts not posters. You are still carrying on. You just can’t help it, same with sij, I have asked politely several times but yet again you both continue to niggle away for no reason.
  2. ffs just give it a rest and be civil I disagreed with the line you were taking. That’s it. I then came back on after doing something else and answered. there really is something wrong on here. Is it really that hard to not be civil ?
  3. Ofc you didn’t....... if you can’t be civil the. Ignore me it’s simple. Absolutely no need for it.
  4. So I answered you, just because I didn’t answer instantly ffs. I do have other things to do you know.....are we really goi g to get into another conversation about disagree buttons? I press that button if I don’t agree with something. I hit the green agree button if I agree. is that really why you are being like you are? Never seen anything like it.
  5. Go back I answered your question. Which by the way I didn’t have too. and Ofc you did mean me. But whatever...... just be civil it isn’t that hard is it? The easy thing to do is not aim poo comments at people in general.
  6. I answered your question in a civil manor. Then for no reason whatsoever in a conversation I’m not part of you called me dopey. what’s the need for it???
  7. I can guarantee he means me...........
  8. another one who can’t help not being civil. I answered all your questions and I was civil about it, no abuse not name calling why do people feel the need to constantly do this on this site? Do you find it this hard to be civil in person or is it just online? I’m struggling to understand why people need to be like it
  9. It seems to me from your points you are saying he’s hired someone to make him look favourable Infact no you have said that, that’s your view I’m not even pulling you down for that by the way ( not sure why you think he would but) if that’s the case and he’s done that he would only do that if he had done something g that was bad to have to make it look favourable. Or why would he give a fizz? Surely he would just sit their and take his money??? if he has indeed done more wrong then this statement could make people come out defensive which would just stoke more of a fire.....
  10. this is my point. It’s just wild rumours again. as I said in my previous post, imo if he his back covering it’s the weirdest way in the world if he did that. He’s leaving g himself open to a barrage.
  11. that’s a big assumption yet again though. Made for pr reasons? If I was being sceptical I would argue him doing this if he’s done something wrong opens himself up to a war chest of backlash from fellow players staff and the club and fans. so for me if he had done something out of order I think he would just keep quiet.
  12. Again. Why can’t people just type without having digs or abusing? just type out a response and be civil. It isn’t hard........
  13. pure semantics. what you are doing is trying to make it sound vague. Anyone with any common sense can see that means monks decision was to not play him and play dawson, it coincides with the fact westwood isNot playing. Answer a question for once rather than sending it around in circles. considering he has said he accepts monks decision ( if you think he’s vague and you think it’s something else explain your interpretation) and they haven’t had a falling out over that ( which is clearly to not have him in the squad because he isn’t ( but again if you do t think that explains. Why) what do you think westwood is trying to say or do?
  14. such semantics. We all know what he meant. And so do you.
  15. wow the semantics on this site with the same posters everytime...... he says monk made a decision and he accepted it. ( I think it’s safe to say considering he hasn’t played that his decision was to not play him. so my point is and was...... that he’s made it clear monk didn’t want to play him. I didn’t say it was a clear reason as to why monk came to that decision did i? Or have I typed something g whilst half asleep???? I also said he continues to explain there was no fall outs or afters. Which goes against the very strong tide of rumour mongers on the site. then guess what the rumour mongers come in force defending their versions of hearsay. Who would have guessed
  16. but what you and many others have done for a long time is blame him and hutch for upsetting the harmony and falling out with monk. It might be that he can’t or doesn’t want to train 5 days a week because of his injury problems. And that might be the reason. Who knows but he’s saying there no matter what the reason is there isn’t a fall out and he’s accepted monks decision. now the only reason to pull it apart is if you or others think he’s bullshitting if he is bullshitting then my god he’s opened up a can of worms because as I keep saying our owner isn’t one to not fight
  17. don’t hold your breath. They will still twist to make it fit their stance because there’s a dozen posters on here who can’t accept a change in what they believed. I have always said someone come out and say what happened, here we are, if he’s telling fibs then I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes with our owners stance of taking g things to court. not changed my stance on this if monk comes and says well westwood punched me in the nose or he refused to play then I will agree back monk. the problem you have here is people have dug in trenches with their stance and. NOw they will fight that to the bitter end
  18. you want me to keep posting the same things. Monk made a decision to not play him he says he’s accepted it no falling out. so I will,ask you the same as others. Are you saying he’s telling lies? i negged you because your just asking the same thing over and over when we have highlighted what we said.
  19. so he states there the manager made a decision and he accepted it. Is there in black and white, he says no fall out, he left the chat on good terms after discussing it. so the only thing I can assume from your stance is your saying he’s telling porkies? or what is your point?
  20. I didn’t slag you off???? I replied saying I agree with some of your post but we need the right manager before we give them time. not sure how I slagged you off there? As for logic, we haven’t had any for 5 years since MM left the club so don’t hold your breath on that mate
  21. well he has and it was highlighted at least 3 times in posts in here. He’s given a clear explanation of why he isnt playing if people are calling him a liar. Say it. Don’t skirt around it.
  22. where? I said at no point anyone is to blame, I said if the rumours were true I would agree they need leaving out or in fact sacking. I also said u til someone comes out and tells people what’s happened then we shouldn’t judge. if he’s not playing him for football I g reason that’s the managers choice and he will live and die by that. monk has skated around it when asked. Why? If he’s got a different version get the rascal out.......like he should have in the first place whatever it was. the only thing monk has said is the same as what westwood has....
  23. how many times do people have to highlight the text for you? but he’s come out and defended the manager and club saying it’s just football it happens are You calling him a liar? If so I’m guessing he’s in for a world of trouble with our owner who loves a good court case.....
  24. easily swayed you and several others have been chasing the rumours for months about him and Hutchinson. he releases a statement with no malice or blame to the manager or club and you still continue to speculate the worst. sorry but it’s staggering
×
×
  • Create New...