Chandler's Transfer Targets

[Chandler]

So you are a hardman 60 year old that used to have a 10% stake in the club going back over 20 years, who has a partner that is far younger than he is, so much so that 20-30 year old millionaire footballers find her so attractive that they get beaten up for it?

Remind me again how this all ties together to form a single human?!

92319[/snapback]

...and you are a penniless 20 something geek who likes chatting up academy rejects at happy hour.

Remind me again how generalising, stereotyping and poor reasoning led palaentologists to conclude that you are the missing link.

[Dunc]

So if I can't resist giving my opinion Dunc, how comes I'm NEVER on a match thread before, during or shortly after games? Surely the temptation would be too much for me to resist?

Generally I don't indulge in post mortems (though not never as you suggest) because I don't get in till all hours with too little blood in my alcohol stream to make me coherent.

If you have monitored my postings as closely as you suggest you would not have made the blunder about my 10% shareholding.

92327[/snapback]

what blunder was that? you said you had a 10% share, did you or did you not?! If you did have the share and it was before I was born it means you must be about 60yrs old

"...and you are a penniless 20 something geek who likes chatting up academy rejects at happy hour."

And what is that if not assumption (makes an ASS out of U & ME if I remember rightly). Not penniless, not a geek (by general consensus) and I've never chatted to any academy rejects or acceptants full stop.

If you aren't a liar, you are 60+, been a successful businessman twice, then lost the money you made twice, had a 10% share in the club around 20 years ago and are a self described hard man.

I only know one person who fits that bill, and who is just as arrogant and ignorant as you.

[Chandler]

So if I can't resist giving my opinion Dunc, how comes I'm NEVER on a match thread before, during or shortly after games? Surely the temptation would be too much for me to resist?

Generally I don't indulge in post mortems (though not never as you suggest) because I don't get in till all hours with too little blood in my alcohol stream to make me coherent.

If you have monitored my postings as closely as you suggest you would not have made the blunder about my 10% shareholding.

92327[/snapback]

what blunder was that? you said you had a 10% share, did you or did you not?! If you did have the share and it was before I was born it means you must be about 60yrs old

"...and you are a penniless 20 something geek who likes chatting up academy rejects at happy hour."

And what is that if not assumption (makes an ASS out of U & ME if I remember rightly). Not penniless, not a geek (by general consensus) and I've never chatted to any academy rejects or acceptants full stop.

If you aren't a liar, you are 60+, been a successful businessman twice, then lost the money you made twice, had a 10% share in the club around 20 years ago and are a self described hard man.

I only know one person who fits that bill, and who is just as arrogant and ignorant as you.

92353[/snapback]

Dunc, you're another one who dishes it out but can't take it. Rattled your cage did I? Good, I'll do it some more...

1) What made you assume I was STILL a 10% shareholder in LCFC earlier on?

2) What makes you assume I had the shareholding 20 years ago?

3) What makes you assume I am 60+?

And what makes me assume you are a very sore loser?

[Dunc]

1) I don't think you still do have a 10% share, you stated repeatedly you sold them. I've never said you still do have the share.

2) 20 yrs is an assumption, I agree. In all honesty that could be longer, If you were telling the truth when you said they were before I was born, it could be as much as 30 (based on my hunch).

3) Well to be fair I think you are between 50 and 65.

[Guest]

1) What made you assume I was STILL a 10% shareholder in LCFC earlier on?

92359[/snapback]

(Chandler @ Mar 31 2005, 3:49 AM)

I once owned 10% of it.

[Chandler]

1) I don't think you still do have a 10% share, you stated repeatedly you sold them.  I've never said you still do have the share.

2) 20 yrs is an assumption, I agree.  In all honesty that could be longer, If you were telling the truth when you said they were before I was born, it could be as much as 30 (based on my hunch).

3) Well to be fair I think you are between 50 and 65.

92362[/snapback]

Nice try, Dunc. But the sweat is rolling into your crack with the weight of all those assumptions you're labouring under. Keep 'em coming, they make me chuckle.

Almost as much as the 'force of Little's personality.' He was once kicked out of a Trappist monastery for being too quiet you know.

[stez]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

[Chandler]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

92372[/snapback]

Thanks for the invite but I don't socialise with minors.

[MADLEVEIN]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

92372[/snapback]

Thanks for the invite but I don't socialise with minors.

92406[/snapback]

yeh me too all that dirt and talk about ....down t'pit .

[Babylon]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

92372[/snapback]

Thanks for the invite but I don't socialise with minors.

92406[/snapback]

yeh me too all that dirt and talk about ....down t'pit .

92416[/snapback]

LMFAO

Jesus chandler certainly thinks alot of himself, I wonder what it is like to be perfect and know everything. Maybe he is the second coming.

[stez]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

92372[/snapback]

Thanks for the invite but I don't socialise with minors.

92406[/snapback]

i get that impression!

[SilverFox]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

92372[/snapback]

Thanks for the invite but I don't socialise with minors.

92406[/snapback]

If you think this board is populated with Minors, and you allegedly don't socialise with minors...why are you here again? I think they call that grooming, and its very illegal you bad bad man

Hows it hanging anyway channy?

[step]

1) You now use the term 'Jocks' loosely - You certainly did not

A good example of Chandler twisting the truth

2) Bringing in minor league fodder (e.g. SPL) in bulk is not the answer. OAP’s is not the answer either. But Chandler will ignore that comment

3) We certainly have at least a good a squad as Wigan and Reading and certainly better than Preston. Wow, Chandler praising Leicester, Is that not a contradiction?

4) Keown, was brought into Leicester to take over from MA, because MA was going to leave to go Everton

Get your facts right, keown had a right to be pizzed off that Adams would not let him contribute

5) I knew there was a 90% chance his successor would **** up – Your right about that you knew as well as the rest of us, the mess MA left behind.

Micky got us promotion with virtually no signings of his own. Exactly, no signing of his own.Two good examples of how Chandler tries to turn facts that contradict his points into one that confirms his point.

6) Micky owned up to his faults. He said that he had lost his sparkle- which was a very big thing for him to have said. I agree it takes a man to admit he was wrong. Which he did'nt. But it needs a big man to put things right

MA felt so strongly about it that he left. His choise, no one elses

7) I could point you in a few directions of where to look (Like the Prem or Europe) but

As I said Hoof, He wont answer your question and you are waisting your time

8) A team enjoying a high league position with a low positive or even negative goal difference might be considered as outperformers. The reverse could also be considered true. It certainly applies in our case.

What a load of balls. There is a direct correlation between goal difference and points gained

Again Chandler tries to twists the facts.

9) Micky's sheer force of personality, Lead to 23 players leaving city in a season. But Chandler will ignore that fact

Levein just doesn't have it in the motivation department

99% of the fans that watch city would agree that the team is better motivated now that when MA was here

10) It is possible that the team may bond and gel next year without any real input from Levein (like the Little years). After all, we are big fish in a rather small pond. But it would be more reassuring if we had a REAL leader and not a cardboard cut out wouldn't it?

Fish? ponds? cut out? What the effing hell does that mean

You're an honourable opponent Hoof so I accept your challenge.

Chandler offered to answer your questions then answered nothing at all.

As I said Hoof, You are waisting your time.

It is pointless even discussing something with him because he states a fact that contradict his point of view, and believes it means the oposite of what it does.

Very, Very strange

PS: Chandler inherited and so owned 10% of the training ground, Not 10% of the club

[Steven]

PS: Chandler inherited and so owned 10% of the training ground, Not 10% of the club

92480[/snapback]

Tell us more.

[step]

I only know that because he said it in on of the threads

[shen]

hi there chands, i'd love to see you in the pub before wigan (thats not a threat) you coming? meet the gang.

92372[/snapback]

Thanks for the invite but I don't socialise with minors.

92406[/snapback]

If you think this board is populated with Minors, and you allegedly don't socialise with minors...why are you here again? I think they call that grooming, and its very illegal you bad bad man

Hows it hanging anyway channy?

92435[/snapback]

The question I've been asking him and myself ever since he showed up here...

[Ric Flair]

Chandler, one question i'd like to know.

You reveal yourself to be 'well off' and you say you've had a 10% stake in City at one point. With your admiration for Michael Adams, did you throw any money in when we were about to go out of business? Hat's off to you if you did, would make sense why you love the little man from Sheffield.

[Dunc]

1) I don't think you still do have a 10% share, you stated repeatedly you sold them.  I've never said you still do have the share.

2) 20 yrs is an assumption, I agree.  In all honesty that could be longer, If you were telling the truth when you said they were before I was born, it could be as much as 30 (based on my hunch).

3) Well to be fair I think you are between 50 and 65.

92362[/snapback]

Nice try, Dunc. But the sweat is rolling into your crack with the weight of all those assumptions you're labouring under. Keep 'em coming, they make me chuckle.

Almost as much as the 'force of Little's personality.' He was once kicked out of a Trappist monastery for being too quiet you know.

92370[/snapback]

Au contraire my fat friend. If anyone is labouring under weight of assumption then its you with your predictions that you make about certain managers/players/people. I've got a fair idea of who you are, and I can probably find out if I am right over the weekend.

As for Little's Personality, if as you state you sold your share before I was born, you'd have no direct access to him and as such his talents or otherwise. Luckily I did and as stated elsewhere so did my father, so if its alright with you, I'll stick with what I know, not what some chancer tells me on here.

As for my crack, I'm concerned if you know it that well, however as someone who talks out of there's all the time, if there is any one who knows about them its you.

[Dunc]

Oh, and before you start telling me "a whole day to think up a response and you come up with that?" I've been working in London all day so didn't get to read your eloquent, accurate response until now.

[Chandler]

1) I don't think you still do have a 10% share, you stated repeatedly you sold them.  I've never said you still do have the share.

2) 20 yrs is an assumption, I agree.  In all honesty that could be longer, If you were telling the truth when you said they were before I was born, it could be as much as 30 (based on my hunch).

3) Well to be fair I think you are between 50 and 65.

92362[/snapback]

Nice try, Dunc. But the sweat is rolling into your crack with the weight of all those assumptions you're labouring under. Keep 'em coming, they make me chuckle.

Almost as much as the 'force of Little's personality.' He was once kicked out of a Trappist monastery for being too quiet you know.

92370[/snapback]

Au contraire my fat friend. If anyone is labouring under weight of assumption then its you with your predictions that you make about certain managers/players/people. I've got a fair idea of who you are, and I can probably find out if I am right over the weekend.

As for Little's Personality, if as you state you sold your share before I was born, you'd have no direct access to him and as such his talents or otherwise. Luckily I did and as stated elsewhere so did my father, so if its alright with you, I'll stick with what I know, not what some chancer tells me on here.

As for my crack, I'm concerned if you know it that well, however as someone who talks out of there's all the time, if there is any one who knows about them its you.

92846[/snapback]

!!!

[Chandler]

Oh, and before you start telling me "a whole day to think up a response and you come up with that?" I've been working in London all day so didn't get to read your eloquent, accurate response until now.

92848[/snapback]

Unlike some Dunc, I don't expect posters to be chained to their PC's monitoring every thread.

You sound a little insecure to me...some assertiveness training might be in order.

[Chandler]

Chandler, one question i'd like to know.

You reveal yourself to be 'well off' and you say you've had a 10% stake in City at one point. With your admiration for Michael Adams, did you throw any money in when we were about to go out of business? Hat's off to you if you did, would make sense why you love the little man from Sheffield.

92562[/snapback]

1. I am not 'well off' now.

2. A company I invested in, invested in New Fox plc

3. I complained about Micky at the time!

[Chandler]

1) You now use the term 'Jocks' loosely -  You certainly did not

A good example of Chandler twisting the truth

2) Bringing in minor league fodder (e.g. SPL) in bulk is not the answer.  OAP’s is not the answer either.  But Chandler will ignore that comment

3) We certainly have at least a good a squad as Wigan and Reading and certainly better than Preston.   Wow,  Chandler praising Leicester, Is that not a contradiction?

4) Keown, was brought into Leicester to take over from MA, because MA was going to leave to go Everton

Get your facts right,  keown had a right to be pizzed off that Adams would not let him contribute

5) I knew there was a 90% chance his successor would **** up – Your right about that you knew as well as the rest of us, the mess MA left behind.  

Micky got us promotion with virtually no signings of his own.  Exactly, no signing of his own.Two good examples of how Chandler tries to turn facts that contradict his points into one that confirms his point. [/i]

6) Micky owned up to his faults. He said that he had lost his sparkle- which was a very big thing for him to have said.   I agree it takes a man to admit he was wrong.  Which he did'nt.  But it needs a big man to put things right

MA felt so strongly about it that he left.   His choise, no one elses

7) I could point you in a few directions of where to look (Like the Prem or Europe) but

As I said Hoof, He wont answer your question and you are waisting your time[/i]

8) A team enjoying a high league position with a low positive or even negative goal difference might be considered as outperformers. The reverse could also be considered true. It certainly applies in our case.

What a load of balls.  There is a direct correlation between goal difference and points gained

Again Chandler tries to twists the facts.

9) Micky's sheer force of personality, Lead to 23 players leaving city in a season. But Chandler will ignore that factLevein just doesn't have it in the motivation department

99% of the fans that watch city would agree that the team is better motivated now that when MA was here10) It is possible that the team may bond and gel next year without any real input from Levein (like the Little years). After all, we are big fish in a rather small pond. But it would be more reassuring if we had a REAL leader and not a cardboard cut out wouldn't it?

Fish? ponds? cut out? What the effing hell does that mean

You're an honourable opponent Hoof so I accept your challenge.

Chandler offered to answer your questions then answered nothing at all.

As I said Hoof, You are waisting your time.

It is pointless even discussing something with him because he states a fact that contradict his point of view, and believes it means the oposite of what it does.

Very, Very strange

PS: Chandler inherited and so owned 10% of the training ground, Not 10% of the club

92480[/snapback]

I feel very sad when fools rush in where angels fear to tread and you have blundered in spectacularly Step. My more intelligent adversaries know when to back off. They also have a sense of irony. A case in point is Hoof. If anyone has reason to correct what I wrote it is him. But he didn't. He's too smart.

Right. It's time to beat you up...

1) You are clearly ignorant of the circumstances that saw Keown come to LCFC. And if Keown's contributions were so valuable why was Levein so happy to ship him out to Reading?

2) Be a big man and reveal to everyone what you and others predicted for LCFC on 'Talking Testicles' after Adams left. Something about salvaging the season by getting a play off place I seem to remember...

3) What is the point you are trying to make? Are you suggesting promotion would have been a better achievement if Adams had thrown money at players like confetti?

4) Did you hear/see Adams' resignation press conference? Are you trying to revise this too?

5) You appeared to agree with my earlier statement that our squad was the equivalent of those in automatic promotion and play off positions. But we are not in a play off spot. That suggests underperformance is the problem. Sounds like a man management job to anyone of average intelligence. Or a tactical rethink to the obsessed/naive.

6) We are the only team in the bottom half of the Championship with a positive goal difference. According to you it should be negative as the league position/goal difference relationship is an iron law. But it isn't. For someone whose numerical skills are probably their only saving grace this was a rash statement. THINK before you post.

7) This makes me laugh. Of the 23 players you mention the majority did not have their contracts renewed before the Premiership season. Most fans knew who would be cleared out. See Talking Testicles for June 2003 if it goes back that far. Most of the remainder succeeded in getting excellent contracts at Premiership clubs when we went down. Par for the course when a club gets relegated.

8) Motivated to do what? This team, which you agree is as good as some in play off spots, is in P16. Its form is steadily worsening, the trend lines are down. One win in ten weeks. No away win for FIVE MONTHS. Do you accept the dictionary definition of 'motivate' or do you have your own personal understanding of the word?

9) I wouldn't expect someone as literal minded as you to grasp the most obvious metaphor Step...

10) Having graduated in a major where logic was a key component I think I can safely say I am much better qualified to assess what a contradiction is than you are Step.

I understand that you are playing to a gallery almost full of sympathisers Step. You think that by merely repeating a commonly held belief it makes you smart. It doesn't.

It makes you a coward.

[step]

You did not answer his questions. You waffled and procrastinated with a load of gibberish that added no rational or logic to your shallow little argument.

[step]

PS: TWAT