rncfc wrote:The suggestion that the board were wrong to extend Mike Flynns contract because we have played between poorly and averagely for the past 4 or 5 games is pathetic.

Stan appears to get pleasure out of pulling up old threads like this. The probability is that he bookmarks these conversations for future reference and the prospect of being able to say "I told you so" - that is pretty sad.

There's a certain type that uses obvious hindsight and then, should a convenient situation arise, presents it as insightful knowledge.

Mostly pensioners.......

whoareya wrote:

rncfc wrote:The suggestion that the board were wrong to extend Mike Flynns contract because we have played between poorly and averagely for the past 4 or 5 games is pathetic.

Stan appears to get pleasure out of pulling up old threads like this. The probability is that he bookmarks these conversations for future reference and the prospect of being able to say "I told you so" - that is pretty sad.

There's a certain type that uses obvious hindsight and then, should a convenient situation arise, presents it as insightful knowledge.

Mostly pensioners.......

Then there are idiots who think grassing up somebody for a criminal offence is worse than the offence itself.
Probably not pensioners.

Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

whoareya wrote:

rncfc wrote:The suggestion that the board were wrong to extend Mike Flynns contract because we have played between poorly and averagely for the past 4 or 5 games is pathetic.

Stan appears to get pleasure out of pulling up old threads like this. The probability is that he bookmarks these conversations for future reference and the prospect of being able to say "I told you so" - that is pretty sad.

There's a certain type that uses obvious hindsight and then, should a convenient situation arise, presents it as insightful knowledge.

Mostly pensioners.......

It is hardly hindsight to bring up a thread from a time before the 'blip'.

There are certain types who never fail to make fools of themselves.

Mostly..........

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

Ditto

This was going to be our year finally getting promotion.
May still be?

Are we playing better than 12 months ago No
Are the players we had 12 months ago improved No
Are we scoring more goals No
Have management match tactics improved No
Has our crowds increased No.
Has watching the side this year been more enjoyable No

Is Flynny better off financially Yes

Therefore Michael sort this current mess out sooner than later.

Somebody mentioned the keeper including Joe last year hoofing the ball as far as they can every time. So its not just the back 4 guilty but again its down to management.
Just don't understand how everyone in the crowd can see what's going wrong but Flynny cannot after all these games in charge.


Still hope but all the above need sorting.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

Grassing someone up for disposing of a cigarette end out of their car window.

Grassing someone up for parking on double yellow lines when they had left their car there in an emergency to collect an ill relative.

Grassing someone up for apprehending a thief or paedo via the use of physical force.

rncfc wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

Grassing someone up for disposing of a cigarette end out of their car window.

Grassing someone up for parking on double yellow lines when they had left their car there in an emergency to collect an ill relative.

Grassing someone up for apprehending a thief or paedo via the use of physical force.

Help me with this. Some years ago the home, in Newport, of a paediatrician was trashed and a family left traumatized. Should we 'snitch' on the perpetrators of that little fiasco?

rncfc wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

struggling a bit me thinks
Grassing someone up for disposing of a cigarette end out of their car window.

Grassing someone up for parking on double yellow lines when they had left their car there in an emergency to collect an ill relative.

Grassing someone up for apprehending a thief or paedo via the use of physical force.

Pet hate chucking litter not a fag end out of car window if Copper about certainly report it otherwise pointless.

Number 2 Has that ever happened?
Number 3 Likewise

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

Grassing someone up for disposing of a cigarette end out of their car window.

Grassing someone up for parking on double yellow lines when they had left their car there in an emergency to collect an ill relative.

Grassing someone up for apprehending a thief or paedo via the use of physical force.

Help me with this. Some years ago the home, in Newport, of a paediatrician was trashed and a family left traumatized. Should we 'snitch' on the perpetrators of that little fiasco?

That was a case of mistaken illiteracy.

whoareya wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

rncfc wrote:Depends on the offence if you ask me. In some cases I think that's a fair stance to take.

Perhaps you would like to tell us the cases you think it would be 'a fair stance to take'?

Grassing someone up for disposing of a cigarette end out of their car window.

Grassing someone up for parking on double yellow lines when they had left their car there in an emergency to collect an ill relative.

Grassing someone up for apprehending a thief or paedo via the use of physical force.

Help me with this. Some years ago the home, in Newport, of a paediatrician was trashed and a family left traumatized. Should we 'snitch' on the perpetrators of that little fiasco?

That was a case of mistaken illiteracy.

That's what happens when people take the law in to their own hands.

Although in your case you believe that we shouldn't have 'snitched' on the coin thrower at the Swansea game. So I rather think your views on this subject are well enough known.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: That's what happens when people take the law in to their own hands.

.

I suppose it keeps Legal Aid parasites in work though.

All these comments about Flynn's alleged salary/financial status is proper snide behaviour.

DT1892 wrote:All these comments about Flynn's alleged salary/financial status is proper snide behaviour.

Why do you think that?