Question: When people on here have suggested the SBT enter into some dialogue with the club and have alluded to their asking if the move would be short term or long term, what are they expecting Sisu to say?
Are Sisu really going to come out and say 'long term?' Of course they're not. They are...
I do find it rather amusing that a doctor would know what is going on at the club in terms of players contracts.
Unless of course they are all under the doctor for sore throats and groin strains etc. and it just slips out during general chit chat.
Or he could be a hypnotherapist I suppose, or...
If it's only 3 we are fooked.
If Sisu are still here we will still be under an embargo for sure.
Pretty certain you cannot play a game with 3 players. :whistle:
Other option is 3 players and 8 academy lads.
:o
And if they said 'short term' you would believe them?
We move it will be long term. Absolutely no doubt about it. They will have burned their bridges with ACL and there's no way the council will allow them to build another stadium in Coventry.
We move out I think we would be looking at at...
Yeah, agree.
Also, the thing that frustrates many rugby fans is the fact that penalties are awarded and no-one quite seems to know what they are for. Half the time the commentators on tv are baffled.
Such a fine line between an infringement and a lawful bit of play and that can cost your team...
It was just the irony of trying to call someone thick and your not being able to word that properly.
Not trying to be the grammar police, it was just the irony. If you had said 'your' in any other sentence or context I wouldn't have said anything, but using the wording 'your thick' together did...
If you hadn't used the words 'your thick' I wouldn't have said owt.
Just that when you try and make out someone lacks intelligence it is a good idea to try and appear a little more intelligent yourself in the wording you use to make out that certain someone is thick!
:thinking about:
Have to say, his defence does seem to be the most ridiculous I can ever remember.
His account of events doesn't even make sense.
Can't see a jury taking very long at all to come to an agreement on a verdict
Sent from my KIS using Tapatalk 2
Get what Nick is saying.
I thought the same. Rape is a most heinous crime of course, but just wondering how you can prove it 45 years later? There surely cannot be any DNA or forsenic evidence and after so long you do have to question as to why now.
If he is innocent then surely his reputation...
This has just come from Covmad though hasn't it?
That completely changes the potential accuracy of the information if it's Covmad.
If it's reported from other sources too then I may start to give it some credence.