Search results

I'm sorry, I have read this three times, however I still have not the faintest idea what you are trying to communicate.

It is selfish. I certainly will never set foot in Sixfields. I go to support the team. You cannot tell me what to do. You complete and utter wanker. SISU have ruined everything for me and my kids. One of my kids is a cripple and cries 'imself to sleep every night. Why don't you come on the...

KCIC wasn't offering to pay the rent. It was offering to pay the rent if crowds were less than 5k. Michael also declined to give any details about what would be paid if crowds were greater than 5k - leading one to believe: 1. The offer was all a smokescreen. 2. There wasn't really any money...

But then, Joy is bonkers.

I bet you say that about all the boys.

I thought that this was in escrow. If so - they have paid up front.

This money belongs to ACL. If you were ACL wouldn't you be pretty cross if money that belongs to you went into escrow instead? Escrow is typically used for money that will be paid contingent upon another event where the parties do not trust each other.

But I do believe it is wrong to swear, which is what I believe this verse tells us. How do you interpret the verse? However, I have in the past quoted many things I don't believe in. I don't understand why I should limit myself in what I quote. How could I ever make a critical argument...

Tut tut. James 5:12 "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath" But I forgive you. :) May the peace of the Lord be with you my son.

I prefer to focus on all the many thousands of files that were not lost. Glass half full and all that! :)

Cripes, I'm sorry I started this religious stuff. So to make up for it, I'll proffer the opinion that the Labour party made a right cock up of the economy in their last couple of terms and it would be a disaster if they were elected again in the upcoming elections. There - that should calm...

I suspect God told him to go and play for Newcastle. It's not wise to argue with him.

Why do people keep on responding to these threads. Don't you ever get bored of repeating the same positions and going round the same points over and over and over again?

-------------------------------------------------------Burge-- ---------------------------------------- Dunno------------------Possibly Johnson----Who can say?---------------------No eyed dear O'Brien?------------------------Fleck--------Who can tell?---------------------------Swanson - maybe...

Please don't say it again. It'll get boring after a while.

They all reckon Rolf is innocent too - apart from two little boys.

I don't think this topic has ever been covered on here before.

They are allowed to lose money. They have lost millions. What we see here is 'not waving but drowning'

I don't recall any abuse either, only questions which Michael declined to answer. OK, so in the end Fisher came back with a load of old bollocks about revenue (P/L = Income - Expense Tim, not just Income - duh!), but the questions over the detail on a pretty valueless barrier option were valid.

If I were ACL I would respond to this with. "OK, so instead of having rent at £x and no revenue, you can have rent of £(x+y) and revenues of £y, where y is the expected, proven revenue.". Of course Fisher would not respond, because it's all disingenuous shite. But it would be mildly amusing...